limitations for literature review

About the LSE Impact Blog
Comments Policy
Popular Posts
Recent Posts
Subscribe to the Impact Blog
Write for us
LSE comment

Neal Haddaway

October 19th, 2020, 8 common problems with literature reviews and how to fix them.

3 comments | 320 shares

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

Literature reviews are an integral part of the process and communication of scientific research. Whilst systematic reviews have become regarded as the highest standard of evidence synthesis, many literature reviews fall short of these standards and may end up presenting biased or incorrect conclusions. In this post, Neal Haddaway highlights 8 common problems with literature review methods, provides examples for each and provides practical solutions for ways to mitigate them.

Enjoying this blogpost? 📨 Sign up to our mailing list and receive all the latest LSE Impact Blog news direct to your inbox.

Researchers regularly review the literature – it’s an integral part of day-to-day research: finding relevant research, reading and digesting the main findings, summarising across papers, and making conclusions about the evidence base as a whole. However, there is a fundamental difference between brief, narrative approaches to summarising a selection of studies and attempting to reliably and comprehensively summarise an evidence base to support decision-making in policy and practice.

So-called ‘evidence-informed decision-making’ (EIDM) relies on rigorous systematic approaches to synthesising the evidence. Systematic review has become the highest standard of evidence synthesis and is well established in the pipeline from research to practice in the field of health . Systematic reviews must include a suite of specifically designed methods for the conduct and reporting of all synthesis activities (planning, searching, screening, appraising, extracting data, qualitative/quantitative/mixed methods synthesis, writing; e.g. see the Cochrane Handbook ). The method has been widely adapted into other fields, including environment (the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence ) and social policy (the Campbell Collaboration ).

Despite the growing interest in systematic reviews, traditional approaches to reviewing the literature continue to persist in contemporary publications across disciplines. These reviews, some of which are incorrectly referred to as ‘systematic’ reviews, may be susceptible to bias and as a result, may end up providing incorrect conclusions. This is of particular concern when reviews address key policy- and practice- relevant questions, such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic or climate change.

These limitations with traditional literature review approaches could be improved relatively easily with a few key procedures; some of them not prohibitively costly in terms of skill, time or resources.

In our recent paper in Nature Ecology and Evolution , we highlight 8 common problems with traditional literature review methods, provide examples for each from the field of environmental management and ecology, and provide practical solutions for ways to mitigate them.

Problem	Solution
Lack of relevance – limited stakeholder engagement can produce a review that is of limited practical use to decision-makers	Stakeholders can be identified, mapped and contacted for feedback and inclusion without the need for extensive budgets – check out best-practice guidance
Mission creep – reviews that don’t publish their methods in an a priori protocol can suffer from shifting goals and inclusion criteria	Carefully design and publish an a priori protocol that outlines planned methods for searching, screening, data extraction, critical appraisal and synthesis in detail. Make use of existing organisations to support you (e.g. the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence).
A lack of transparency/replicability in the review methods may mean that the review cannot be replicated – a central tenet of the scientific method!	Be explicit, and make use of high-quality guidance and standards for review conduct (e.g. CEE Guidance) and reporting (PRISMA or ROSES)
Selection bias (where included studies are not representative of the evidence base) and a lack of comprehensiveness (an inappropriate search method) can mean that reviews end up with the wrong evidence for the question at hand	Carefully design a search strategy with an info specialist; trial the search strategy (against a benchmark list); use multiple bibliographic databases/languages/sources of grey literature; publish search methods in an a priori protocol for peer-review
The exclusion of grey literature and failure to test for evidence of publication bias can result in incorrect or misleading conclusions	Include attempts to find grey literature, including both ‘file-drawer’ (unpublished academic) research and organisational reports. Test for possible evidence of publication bias.
Traditional reviews often lack appropriate critical appraisal of included study validity, treating all evidence as equally valid – we know some research is more valid and we need to account for this in the synthesis.	Carefully plan and trial a critical appraisal tool before starting the process in full, learning from existing robust critical appraisal tools.
Inappropriate synthesis (e.g. using vote-counting and inappropriate statistics) can negate all of the preceding systematic effort. Vote-counting (tallying studies based on their statistical significance) ignores study validity and magnitude of effect sizes.	Select the synthesis method carefully based on the data analysed. Vote-counting should never be used instead of meta-analysis. Formal methods for narrative synthesis should be used to summarise and describe the evidence base.

There is a lack of awareness and appreciation of the methods needed to ensure systematic reviews are as free from bias and as reliable as possible: demonstrated by recent, flawed, high-profile reviews. We call on review authors to conduct more rigorous reviews, on editors and peer-reviewers to gate-keep more strictly, and the community of methodologists to better support the broader research community. Only by working together can we build and maintain a strong system of rigorous, evidence-informed decision-making in conservation and environmental management.

Note: This article gives the views of the authors, and not the position of the LSE Impact Blog, nor of the London School of Economics. Please review our comments policy if you have any concerns on posting a comment below

Image credit: Jaeyoung Geoffrey Kang via unsplash

About the author

Neal Haddaway is a Senior Research Fellow at the Stockholm Environment Institute, a Humboldt Research Fellow at the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, and a Research Associate at the Africa Centre for Evidence. He researches evidence synthesis methodology and conducts systematic reviews and maps in the field of sustainability and environmental science. His main research interests focus on improving the transparency, efficiency and reliability of evidence synthesis as a methodology and supporting evidence synthesis in resource constrained contexts. He co-founded and coordinates the Evidence Synthesis Hackathon (www.eshackathon.org) and is the leader of the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence centre at SEI. @nealhaddaway

Why is mission creep a problem and not a legitimate response to an unexpected finding in the literature? Surely the crucial points are that the review’s scope is stated clearly and implemented rigorously, not when the scope was finalised.

Pingback: Quick, but not dirty – Can rapid evidence reviews reliably inform policy? | Impact of Social Sciences

#9. Most of them are terribly boring. Which is why I teach students how to make them engaging…and useful.

“But I’m not ready!” Common barriers to writing and how to overcome them

November 16th, 2020.

“Remember a condition of academic writing is that we expose ourselves to critique” – 15 steps to revising journal articles

January 18th, 2017.

A simple guide to ethical co-authorship

March 29th, 2021.

How common is academic plagiarism?

February 8th, 2024.

Visit our sister blog LSE Review of Books

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them

Affiliations.

1 Mercator Research Institute on Climate Change and Global Commons, Berlin, Germany. [email protected].
2 Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. [email protected].
3 Africa Centre for Evidence, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa. [email protected].
4 College of Medicine and Health, Exeter University, Exeter, UK.
5 Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
6 School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
7 Department of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, UK.
8 Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
9 Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
10 Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, UK Centre, School of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
11 Liljus ltd, London, UK.
12 Department of Forest Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
13 Evidence Synthesis Lab, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, University of Newcastle, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK.
PMID: 33046871
DOI: 10.1038/s41559-020-01295-x
Author Correction: Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them. Haddaway NR, Bethel A, Dicks LV, Koricheva J, Macura B, Petrokofsky G, Pullin AS, Savilaakso S, Stewart GB. Haddaway NR, et al. Nat Ecol Evol. 2020 Dec;4(12):1725. doi: 10.1038/s41559-020-01346-3. Nat Ecol Evol. 2020. PMID: 33077931

Traditional approaches to reviewing literature may be susceptible to bias and result in incorrect decisions. This is of particular concern when reviews address policy- and practice-relevant questions. Systematic reviews have been introduced as a more rigorous approach to synthesizing evidence across studies; they rely on a suite of evidence-based methods aimed at maximizing rigour and minimizing susceptibility to bias. Despite the increasing popularity of systematic reviews in the environmental field, evidence synthesis methods continue to be poorly applied in practice, resulting in the publication of syntheses that are highly susceptible to bias. Recognizing the constraints that researchers can sometimes feel when attempting to plan, conduct and publish rigorous and comprehensive evidence syntheses, we aim here to identify major pitfalls in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews, making use of recent examples from across the field. Adopting a 'critical friend' role in supporting would-be systematic reviews and avoiding individual responses to police use of the 'systematic review' label, we go on to identify methodological solutions to mitigate these pitfalls. We then highlight existing support available to avoid these issues and call on the entire community, including systematic review specialists, to work towards better evidence syntheses for better evidence and better decisions.

PubMed Disclaimer

Monolingual searches can limit and bias results in global literature reviews. Nuñez MA, Amano T. Nuñez MA, et al. Nat Ecol Evol. 2021 Mar;5(3):264. doi: 10.1038/s41559-020-01369-w. Nat Ecol Evol. 2021. PMID: 33398107 No abstract available.

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

Nature Publishing Group

Miscellaneous

NCI CPTAC Assay Portal

Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Eight common problems with science literature reviews and how to fix them

Research Fellow, Africa Centre for Evidence, University of Johannesburg

Disclosure statement

Neal Robert Haddaway works for the Stockholm Environment Institute and the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change. He receives funding from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Mistra, Formas, and Vinnova. He is also an honorary Research Associate at the Africa Centre for Evidence at the University of Johannesburg.

University of Johannesburg provides support as an endorsing partner of The Conversation AFRICA.

View all partners

A pile of books, with ribbons sticking out to denote bookmarks

Researchers regularly review the literature that’s generated by others in their field. This is an integral part of day-to-day research: finding relevant research, reading and digesting the main findings, summarising across papers, and making conclusions about the evidence base as a whole.

However, there is a fundamental difference between brief, narrative approaches to summarising a selection of studies and attempting to reliably, comprehensively summarise an evidence base to support decision-making in policy and practice.

So-called “evidence-informed decision-making” relies on rigorous systematic approaches to synthesising the evidence. Systematic review has become the highest standard of evidence synthesis. It is well established in the pipeline from research to practice in several fields including health , the environment and social policy . Rigorous systematic reviews are vital for decision-making because they help to provide the strongest evidence that a policy is likely to work (or not). They also help to avoid expensive or dangerous mistakes in the choice of policies.

But systematic review has not yet entirely replaced traditional methods of literature review. These traditional reviews may be susceptible to bias and so may end up providing incorrect conclusions. This is especially worrying when reviews address key policy and practice questions.

The good news is that the limitations of traditional literature review approaches could be improved relatively easily with a few key procedures. Some of these are not prohibitively costly in terms of skill, time or resources. That’s particularly important in African contexts, where resource constraints are a daily reality, but should not compromise the continent’s need for rigorous, systematic and transparent evidence to inform policy.

In our recent paper in Nature Ecology and Evolution , we highlighted eight common problems with traditional literature review methods. We gave examples for each problem, drawing from the field of environmental management and ecology. Finally, we outlined practical solutions.

These are the eight problems we identified in our paper .

First, traditional literature reviews can lack relevance. This is because limited stakeholder engagement can lead to a review that is of limited practical use to decision-makers.

Second, reviews that don’t publish their methods in an a priori (meaning that it is published before the review work begins) protocol may suffer from mission creep. In our paper we give the example of a 2019 review that initially stated it was looking at all population trends among insects. Instead, it ended up focusing only on studies that showed insect population declines. This could have been prevented by publishing and sticking to methods outlined in a protocol.

Third, a lack of transparency and replicability in the review methods may mean that the review cannot be replicated . Replicability is a central tenet of the scientific method.

Selection bias is another common problem. Here, the studies that are included in a literature review are not representative of the evidence base. A lack of comprehensiveness, stemming from an inappropriate search method, can also mean that reviews end up with the wrong evidence for the question at hand.

Traditional reviews may also exclude grey literature . This is defined as any document

produced on all levels of government, academics, business and industry in print and electronic formats, but which is not controlled by commercial publishers, i.e., where publishing is not the primary activity of the producing body.

It includes organisational reports and unpublished theses or other studies . Traditional reviews may also fail to test for evidence of publication bias; both these issues can result in incorrect or misleading conclusions. Another common error is to treat all evidence as equally valid. The reality is that some research studies are more valid than others. This needs to be accounted for in the synthesis.

Inappropriate synthesis is another common issue. This involves methods like vote-counting, which refers to tallying studies based on their statistical significance. Finally, a lack of consistency and error checking (as would happen when a reviewer works alone) can introduce errors and biases if a single reviewer makes decisions without consensus .

All of these common problems can be solved, though. Here’s how.

Stakeholders can be identified, mapped and contacted for feedback and inclusion without the need for extensive budgets. Best-practice guidelines for this process already exist .

Researchers can carefully design and publish an a priori protocol that outlines planned methods for searching, screening, data extraction, critical appraisal and synthesis in detail. Organisations like the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence have existing protocols from which people can draw.

Researchers also need to be explicit and use high-quality guidance and standards for review conduct and reporting . Several such standards already exist .

Another useful approach is to carefully design a search strategy with an info specialist; to trial the search strategy against a benchmark list; and to use multiple bibliographic databases, languages and sources of grey literature. Researchers should then publish their search methods in an a priori protocol for peer review.

Researchers should consider carefully planning and trialling a critical appraisal tool before starting the process in full, learning from existing robust critical appraisal tools . Critical appraisal is the carefully planned assessment of all possible risks of bias and possible confounders in a research study. Researchers should select their synthesis method carefully, based on the data analysed. Vote-counting should never be used instead of meta-analysis. Formal methods for narrative synthesis should be used to summarise and describe the evidence base.

Finally, at least two reviewers should screen a subset of the evidence base to ensure consistency and shared understanding of the methods before proceeding. Ideally, reviewers should conduct all decisions separately and then consolidate.

Collaboration

Collaboration is crucial to address the problems with traditional review processes. Authors need to conduct more rigorous reviews. Editors and peer reviewers need to gate-keep more strictly. The community of methodologists needs to better support the broader research community.

Working together, the academic and research community can build and maintain a strong system of rigorous, evidence-informed decision-making in conservation and environmental management – and, ultimately, in other disciplines.

Systematic reviews
Evidence based policy
Academic research

Want to write?

Write an article and join a growing community of more than 189,600 academics and researchers from 5,042 institutions.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Perspective
Published: 12 October 2020

Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them

Neal R. Haddaway ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3902-2234 1 , 2 , 3 ,
Alison Bethel 4 ,
Lynn V. Dicks 5 , 6 ,
Julia Koricheva ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9033-0171 7 ,
Biljana Macura ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4253-1390 2 ,
Gillian Petrokofsky 8 ,
Andrew S. Pullin 9 ,
Sini Savilaakso ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8514-8105 10 , 11 &
Gavin B. Stewart ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5684-1544 12

Nature Ecology & Evolution volume 4 , pages 1582–1589 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

12k Accesses

107 Citations

387 Altmetric

Metrics details

Conservation biology
Environmental impact

An Author Correction to this article was published on 19 October 2020

This article has been updated

Traditional approaches to reviewing literature may be susceptible to bias and result in incorrect decisions. This is of particular concern when reviews address policy- and practice-relevant questions. Systematic reviews have been introduced as a more rigorous approach to synthesizing evidence across studies; they rely on a suite of evidence-based methods aimed at maximizing rigour and minimizing susceptibility to bias. Despite the increasing popularity of systematic reviews in the environmental field, evidence synthesis methods continue to be poorly applied in practice, resulting in the publication of syntheses that are highly susceptible to bias. Recognizing the constraints that researchers can sometimes feel when attempting to plan, conduct and publish rigorous and comprehensive evidence syntheses, we aim here to identify major pitfalls in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews, making use of recent examples from across the field. Adopting a ‘critical friend’ role in supporting would-be systematic reviews and avoiding individual responses to police use of the ‘systematic review’ label, we go on to identify methodological solutions to mitigate these pitfalls. We then highlight existing support available to avoid these issues and call on the entire community, including systematic review specialists, to work towards better evidence syntheses for better evidence and better decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

$29.99 / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

$119.00 per year

only $9.92 per issue

Buy this article

Purchase on SpringerLink
Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Challenges and recommendations on the conduct of systematic reviews of observational epidemiologic studies in environmental and occupational health

Insights from a cross-sector review on how to conceptualise the quality of use of research evidence

The past, present and future of Registered Reports

Change history, 19 october 2020.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Grant, M. J. & Booth, A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr. J. 26 , 91–108 (2009).

PubMed Google Scholar

Haddaway, N. R. & Macura, B. The role of reporting standards in producing robust literature reviews. Nat. Clim. Change 8 , 444–447 (2018).

Google Scholar

Pullin, A. S. & Knight, T. M. Science informing policy–a health warning for the environment. Environ. Evid. 1 , 15 (2012).

Haddaway, N., Woodcock, P., Macura, B. & Collins, A. Making literature reviews more reliable through application of lessons from systematic reviews. Conserv. Biol. 29 , 1596–1605 (2015).

CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Pullin, A., Frampton, G., Livoreil, B. & Petrokofsky, G. Guidelines and Standards for Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management (Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, 2018).

White, H. The twenty-first century experimenting society: the four waves of the evidence revolution. Palgrave Commun. 5 , 47 (2019).

O’Leary, B. C. et al. The reliability of evidence review methodology in environmental science and conservation. Environ. Sci. Policy 64 , 75–82 (2016).

Woodcock, P., Pullin, A. S. & Kaiser, M. J. Evaluating and improving the reliability of evidence syntheses in conservation and environmental science: a methodology. Biol. Conserv. 176 , 54–62 (2014).

Campbell Systematic Reviews: Policies and Guidelines (Campbell Collaboration, 2014).

Higgins, J. P. et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (John Wiley & Sons, 2019).

Shea, B. J. et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 358 , j4008 (2017).

PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Haddaway, N. R., Land, M. & Macura, B. “A little learning is a dangerous thing”: a call for better understanding of the term ‘systematic review’. Environ. Int. 99 , 356–360 (2017).

Freeman, R. E. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2010).

Haddaway, N. R. et al. A framework for stakeholder engagement during systematic reviews and maps in environmental management. Environ. Evid. 6 , 11 (2017).

Land, M., Macura, B., Bernes, C. & Johansson, S. A five-step approach for stakeholder engagement in prioritisation and planning of environmental evidence syntheses. Environ. Evid. 6 , 25 (2017).

Oliver, S. & Dickson, K. Policy-relevant systematic reviews to strengthen health systems: models and mechanisms to support their production. Evid. Policy 12 , 235–259 (2016).

Savilaakso, S. et al. Systematic review of effects on biodiversity from oil palm production. Environ. Evid. 3 , 4 (2014).

Savilaakso, S., Laumonier, Y., Guariguata, M. R. & Nasi, R. Does production of oil palm, soybean, or jatropha change biodiversity and ecosystem functions in tropical forests. Environ. Evid. 2 , 17 (2013).

Haddaway, N. R. & Crowe, S. Experiences and lessons in stakeholder engagement in environmental evidence synthesis: a truly special series. Environ. Evid. 7 , 11 (2018).

Sánchez-Bayo, F. & Wyckhuys, K. A. Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: a review of its drivers. Biol. Conserv. 232 , 8–27 (2019).

Agarwala, M. & Ginsberg, J. R. Untangling outcomes of de jure and de facto community-based management of natural resources. Conserv. Biol. 31 , 1232–1246 (2017).

Gurevitch, J., Curtis, P. S. & Jones, M. H. Meta-analysis in ecology. Adv. Ecol. Res. 32 , 199–247 (2001).

CAS Google Scholar

Haddaway, N. R., Macura, B., Whaley, P. & Pullin, A. S. ROSES RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses: pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps. Environ. Evid. 7 , 7 (2018).

Lwasa, S. et al. A meta-analysis of urban and peri-urban agriculture and forestry in mediating climate change. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 13 , 68–73 (2015).

Pacifici, M. et al. Species’ traits influenced their response to recent climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 7 , 205–208 (2017).

Owen-Smith, N. Ramifying effects of the risk of predation on African multi-predator, multi-prey large-mammal assemblages and the conservation implications. Biol. Conserv. 232 , 51–58 (2019).

Prugh, L. R. et al. Designing studies of predation risk for improved inference in carnivore-ungulate systems. Biol. Conserv. 232 , 194–207 (2019).

Li, Y. et al. Effects of biochar application in forest ecosystems on soil properties and greenhouse gas emissions: a review. J. Soil Sediment. 18 , 546–563 (2018).

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J. & Altman, D. G., The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 6 , e1000097 (2009).

Bernes, C. et al. What is the influence of a reduction of planktivorous and benthivorous fish on water quality in temperate eutrophic lakes? A systematic review. Environ. Evid. 4 , 7 (2015).

McDonagh, M., Peterson, K., Raina, P., Chang, S. & Shekelle, P. Avoiding bias in selecting studies. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews [Internet] (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2013).

Burivalova, Z., Hua, F., Koh, L. P., Garcia, C. & Putz, F. A critical comparison of conventional, certified, and community management of tropical forests for timber in terms of environmental, economic, and social variables. Conserv. Lett. 10 , 4–14 (2017).

Min-Venditti, A. A., Moore, G. W. & Fleischman, F. What policies improve forest cover? A systematic review of research from Mesoamerica. Glob. Environ. Change 47 , 21–27 (2017).

Bramer, W. M., Giustini, D. & Kramer, B. M. R. Comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of searches for 120 systematic reviews in Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar: a prospective study. Syst. Rev. 5 , 39 (2016).

Bramer, W. M., Giustini, D., Kramer, B. M. R. & Anderson, P. F. The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2 , 115 (2013).

Gusenbauer, M. & Haddaway, N. R. Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Res. Synth. Methods 11 , 181–217 (2020).

Livoreil, B. et al. Systematic searching for environmental evidence using multiple tools and sources. Environ. Evid. 6 , 23 (2017).

Mlinarić, A., Horvat, M. & Šupak Smolčić, V. Dealing with the positive publication bias: why you should really publish your negative results. Biochem. Med. 27 , 447–452 (2017).

Lin, L. & Chu, H. Quantifying publication bias in meta‐analysis. Biometrics 74 , 785–794 (2018).

Haddaway, N. R. & Bayliss, H. R. Shades of grey: two forms of grey literature important for reviews in conservation. Biol. Conserv. 191 , 827–829 (2015).

Viechtbauer, W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J. Stat. Softw. 36 , 1–48 (2010).

Bilotta, G. S., Milner, A. M. & Boyd, I. On the use of systematic reviews to inform environmental policies. Environ. Sci. Policy 42 , 67–77 (2014).

Englund, G., Sarnelle, O. & Cooper, S. D. The importance of data‐selection criteria: meta‐analyses of stream predation experiments. Ecology 80 , 1132–1141 (1999).

Burivalova, Z., Şekercioğlu, Ç. H. & Koh, L. P. Thresholds of logging intensity to maintain tropical forest biodiversity. Curr. Biol. 24 , 1893–1898 (2014).

Bicknell, J. E., Struebig, M. J., Edwards, D. P. & Davies, Z. G. Improved timber harvest techniques maintain biodiversity in tropical forests. Curr. Biol. 24 , R1119–R1120 (2014).

Damette, O. & Delacote, P. Unsustainable timber harvesting, deforestation and the role of certification. Ecol. Econ. 70 , 1211–1219 (2011).

Blomley, T. et al. Seeing the wood for the trees: an assessment of the impact of participatory forest management on forest condition in Tanzania. Oryx 42 , 380–391 (2008).

Haddaway, N. R. et al. How does tillage intensity affect soil organic carbon? A systematic review. Environ. Evid. 6 , 30 (2017).

Higgins, J. P. et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343 , d5928 (2011).

Stewart, G. Meta-analysis in applied ecology. Biol. Lett. 6 , 78–81 (2010).

Koricheva, J. & Gurevitch, J. Uses and misuses of meta‐analysis in plant ecology. J. Ecol. 102 , 828–844 (2014).

Vetter, D., Ruecker, G. & Storch, I. Meta‐analysis: a need for well‐defined usage in ecology and conservation biology. Ecosphere 4 , 1–24 (2013).

Stewart, G. B. & Schmid, C. H. Lessons from meta-analysis in ecology and evolution: the need for trans-disciplinary evidence synthesis methodologies. Res. Synth. Methods 6 , 109–110 (2015).

Macura, B. et al. Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence for environmental policy and management: an overview of different methodological options. Environ. Evid. 8 , 24 (2019).

Koricheva, J. & Gurevitch, J. in Handbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution (eds Koricheva, J. et al.) Ch. 1 (Princeton Scholarship Online, 2013).

Britt, M., Haworth, S. E., Johnson, J. B., Martchenko, D. & Shafer, A. B. The importance of non-academic coauthors in bridging the conservation genetics gap. Biol. Conserv. 218 , 118–123 (2018).

Graham, L., Gaulton, R., Gerard, F. & Staley, J. T. The influence of hedgerow structural condition on wildlife habitat provision in farmed landscapes. Biol. Conserv. 220 , 122–131 (2018).

Delaquis, E., de Haan, S. & Wyckhuys, K. A. On-farm diversity offsets environmental pressures in tropical agro-ecosystems: a synthetic review for cassava-based systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 251 , 226–235 (2018).

Popay, J. et al. Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews: A Product from the ESRC Methods Programme Version 1 (Lancaster Univ., 2006).

Pullin, A. S. et al. Human well-being impacts of terrestrial protected areas. Environ. Evid. 2 , 19 (2013).

Waffenschmidt, S., Knelangen, M., Sieben, W., Bühn, S. & Pieper, D. Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 19 , 132 (2019).

Rallo, A. & García-Arberas, L. Differences in abiotic water conditions between fluvial reaches and crayfish fauna in some northern rivers of the Iberian Peninsula. Aquat. Living Resour. 15 , 119–128 (2002).

Glasziou, P. & Chalmers, I. Research waste is still a scandal—an essay by Paul Glasziou and Iain Chalmers. BMJ 363 , k4645 (2018).

Haddaway, N. R. Open Synthesis: on the need for evidence synthesis to embrace Open Science. Environ. Evid. 7 , 26 (2018).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank C. Shortall from Rothamstead Research for useful discussions on the topic.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Mercator Research Institute on Climate Change and Global Commons, Berlin, Germany

Neal R. Haddaway

Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

Neal R. Haddaway & Biljana Macura

Africa Centre for Evidence, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

College of Medicine and Health, Exeter University, Exeter, UK

Alison Bethel

Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Lynn V. Dicks

School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

Department of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, UK

Julia Koricheva

Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Gillian Petrokofsky

Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, UK Centre, School of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK

Andrew S. Pullin

Liljus ltd, London, UK

Sini Savilaakso

Department of Forest Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

Evidence Synthesis Lab, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, University of Newcastle, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK

Gavin B. Stewart

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

N.R.H. developed the manuscript idea and a first draft. All authors contributed to examples and edited the text. All authors have read and approve of the final submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neal R. Haddaway .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

S.S. is a co-founder of Liljus ltd, a firm that provides research services in sustainable finance as well as forest conservation and management. The other authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary table.

Examples of literature reviews and common problems identified.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Haddaway, N.R., Bethel, A., Dicks, L.V. et al. Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them. Nat Ecol Evol 4 , 1582–1589 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01295-x

Download citation

Received : 24 March 2020

Accepted : 31 July 2020

Published : 12 October 2020

Issue Date : December 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01295-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

What secondary research evidence exists on the effects of forest management after disturbances: a systematic map protocol.

Moritz Baumeister
Markus A. Meyer

Environmental Evidence (2024)

Systematic review and meta-analysis of ex-post evaluations on the effectiveness of carbon pricing

Niklas Döbbeling-Hildebrandt
Klaas Miersch
Jan C. Minx

Nature Communications (2024)

Facing the storm: Developing corporate adaptation and resilience action plans amid climate uncertainty

Katharina Hennes
David Bendig
Andreas Löschel

npj Climate Action (2024)

A review of the necessity of a multi-layer land-use planning

Hashem Dadashpoor
Leyla Ghasempour

Landscape and Ecological Engineering (2024)

Synthesizing the relationships between environmental DNA concentration and freshwater macrophyte abundance: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Toshiaki S. Jo

Hydrobiologia (2024)

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

What is a literature review?
Steps in the Literature Review Process
Define your research question
Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
Choose databases and search
Review Results
Synthesize Results
Analyze Results
Librarian Support
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools

What is a Literature Review?

A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations. It contains the most pertinent studies and points to important past and current research and practices. It provides background and context, and shows how your research will contribute to the field.

A literature review should:

Provide a comprehensive and updated review of the literature;
Explain why this review has taken place;
Articulate a position or hypothesis;
Acknowledge and account for conflicting and corroborating points of view

From S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

A literature review can be written as an introduction to a study to:

Demonstrate how a study fills a gap in research
Compare a study with other research that's been done

Or it can be a separate work (a research article on its own) which:

Organizes or describes a topic
Describes variables within a particular issue/problem

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

It's a snapshot in time. Unlike other reviews, this one has beginning, a middle and an end. There may be future developments that could make your work less relevant.
It may be too focused. Some niche studies may miss the bigger picture.
It can be difficult to be comprehensive. There is no way to make sure all the literature on a topic was considered.
It is easy to be biased if you stick to top tier journals. There may be other places where people are publishing exemplary research. Look to open access publications and conferences to reflect a more inclusive collection. Also, make sure to include opposing views (and not just supporting evidence).

Source: Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. “A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies.” Health Information & Libraries Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, June 2009, pp. 91–108. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

Librarian Assistance

For help, please contact the librarian for your subject area. We have a guide to library specialists by subject .

Last Updated: Aug 26, 2024 5:59 AM
URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

Knowledge Base

Methodology

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

Search for relevant literature
Evaluate sources
Identify themes, debates, and gaps
Outline the structure
Write your literature review

A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

Quick Run-through
Step 1 & 2

When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:

Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and its scholarly context
Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.

Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)

You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.

Download Word doc Download Google doc

Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .

If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research problem and questions .

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list as you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.

Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth

Search for relevant sources

Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some useful databases to search for journals and articles include:

Your university’s library catalogue
Google Scholar
Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
EconLit (economics)
Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)

You can also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.

Make sure to read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.

You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.

For each publication, ask yourself:

What question or problem is the author addressing?
What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
What are the key theories, models, and methods?
Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
What are the results and conclusions of the study?
How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

Make sure the sources you use are credible , and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.

You can use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.

Take notes and cite your sources

As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.

It is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.

To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:

Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?

This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.

Most research has focused on young women.
There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
But there is still a lack of robust research on highly visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat—this is a gap that you could address in your own research.

There are various approaches to organizing the body of a literature review. Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order.

Try to analyze patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.

If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.

For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.

Methodological

If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:

Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources

Theoretical

A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.

You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.

Like any other academic text , your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.

The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.

As you write, you can follow these tips:

Summarize and synthesize: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
Analyze and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers — add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transition words and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts

In the conclusion, you should summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance.

When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !

This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.

Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

Sampling methods
Simple random sampling
Stratified sampling
Cluster sampling
Likert scales
Reproducibility

Statistics

Null hypothesis
Statistical power
Probability distribution
Effect size
Poisson distribution

Research bias

Optimism bias
Cognitive bias
Implicit bias
Hawthorne effect
Anchoring bias
Explicit bias

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

To familiarize yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An annotated bibliography is a list of source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a paper .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved September 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Writing A Literature Review

7 common (and costly) mistakes to avoid ☠️.

By: David Phair (PhD) | Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2021

Crafting a high-quality literature review is critical to earning marks and developing a strong dissertation, thesis or research project. But, it’s no simple task. Here at Grad Coach, we’ve reviewed thousands of literature reviews and seen a recurring set of mistakes and issues that drag students down.

In this post, we’ll unpack 7 common literature review mistakes , so that you can avoid these pitfalls and submit a literature review that impresses.

Overview: 7 Literature Review Killers

Over-reliance on low-quality sources
A lack of landmark/seminal literature
A lack of current literature
Description instead of integration and synthesis
Irrelevant or unfocused content
Poor chapter structure and layout
Plagiarism and poor referencing

Mistake #1: Over-reliance on low-quality sources

One of the most common issues we see in literature reviews is an over-reliance on low-quality sources . This includes a broad collection of non-academic sources like blog posts, opinion pieces, publications by advocacy groups and daily news articles.

Of course, just because a piece of content takes the form of a blog post doesn’t automatically mean it is low-quality . However, it’s (generally) unlikely to be as academically sound (i.e., well-researched, objective and scientific) as a journal article, so you need to be a lot more sceptical when considering this content and make sure that it has a strong, well-reasoned foundation. As a rule of thumb, your literature review shouldn’t rely heavily on these types of content – they should be used sparingly.

Ideally, your literature review should be built on a strong base of journal articles , ideally from well-recognised, peer-reviewed journals with a high H index . You can also draw on books written by well-established subject matter experts. When considering books, try to focus on those that are published by academic publishers , for example, Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press and Routledge. You can also draw on government websites, provided they have a strong reputation for objectivity and data quality. As with any other source, be wary of any government website that seems to be pushing an agenda.

the literature review credibility continuum

Source: UCCS

As I mentioned, this doesn’t mean that your literature review can’t include the occasional blog post or news article. These types of content have their place , especially when setting the context for your study. For example, you may want to cite a collection of newspaper articles to demonstrate the emergence of a recent trend. However, your core arguments and theoretical foundations shouldn’t rely on these. Build your foundation on credible academic literature to ensure that your study stands on the proverbial shoulders of giants.

Mistake #2: A lack of landmark/seminal literature

Another issue we see in weaker literature reviews is an absence of landmark literature for the research topic . Landmark literature (sometimes also referred to as seminal or pivotal work) refers to the articles that initially presented an idea of great importance or influence within a particular discipline. In other words, the articles that put the specific area of research “on the map”, so to speak.

The reason for the absence of landmark literature in poor literature reviews is most commonly that either the student isn’t aware of the literature (because they haven’t sufficiently immersed themselves in the existing research), or that they feel that they should only present the most up to date studies. Whatever the cause, it’s a problem, as a good literature review should always acknowledge the seminal writing in the field.

But, how do you find landmark literature?

Well, you can usually spot these by searching for the topic in Google Scholar and identifying the handful of articles with high citation counts. They’ll also be the studies most commonly cited in textbooks and, of course, Wikipedia (but please don’t use Wikipedia as a source!).

So, when you’re piecing your literature review together, remember to pay homage to the classics , even if only briefly. Seminal works are the theoretical foundation of a strong literature review.

Mistake #3: A lack of current literature

As I mentioned, it’s incredibly important to acknowledge the landmark studies and research in your literature review. However, a strong literature review should also incorporate the current literature . It should, ideally, compare and contrast the “classics” with the more up to date research, and briefly comment on the evolution.

Of course, you don’t want to burn precious word count providing an in-depth history lesson regarding the evolution of the topic (unless that’s one of your research aims, of course), but you should at least acknowledge any key differences between the old and the new.

But, how do you find current literature?

To find current literature in your research area, you can once again use Google Scholar by simply selecting the “Since…” link on the left-hand side. Depending on your area of study, recent may mean the last year or two, or a fair deal longer.

You have to justify every choice in your dissertation defence

So, as you develop your catalogue of literature, remember to incorporate both the classics and the more up to date research. By doing this, you’ll achieve a comprehensive literature base that is both well-rooted in tried and tested theory and current.

Mistake #4: Description instead of integration and synthesis

This one is a big one. And, unfortunately, it’s a very common one. In fact, it’s probably the most common issue we encounter in literature reviews.

All too often, students think that a literature review is simply a summary of what each researcher has said. A lengthy, detailed “he said, she said”. This is incorrect . A good literature review needs to go beyond just describing all the relevant literature. It needs to integrate the existing research to show how it all fits together.

A good literature review should also highlight what areas don’t fit together , and which pieces are missing . In other words, what do researchers disagree on and why might that be. It’s seldom the case that everyone agrees on everything because the “truth” is typically very nuanced and intricate in reality. A strong literature review is a balanced one , with a mix of different perspectives and findings that give the reader a clear view of the current state of knowledge.

A good analogy is that of a jigsaw puzzle. The various findings and arguments from each piece of literature form the individual puzzle pieces, and you then put these together to develop a picture of the current state of knowledge . Importantly, that puzzle will in all likelihood have pieces that don’t fit well together, and pieces that are missing. It’s seldom a pretty puzzle!

By the end of this process of critical review and synthesis of the existing literature , it should be clear what’s missing – in other words, the gaps that exist in the current research . These gaps then form the foundation for your proposed study. In other words, your study will attempt to contribute a missing puzzle piece (or get two pieces to fit together).

So, when you’re crafting your literature review chapter, remember that this chapter needs to go well beyond a basic description of the existing research – it needs to synthesise it (bring it all together) and form the foundation for your study.

Mistake #5: Irrelevant or unfocused content

Another common mistake we see in literature review chapters is quite simply the inclusion of irrelevant content . Some chapters can waffle on for pages and pages and leave the reader thinking, “so what?”

So, how do you decide what’s relevant?

Well, to ensure you stay on-topic and focus, you need to revisit your research aims, objectives and research questions . Remember, the purpose of the literature review is to build the theoretical foundation that will help you achieve your research aims and objectives, and answer your research questions . Therefore, relevant content is the relatively narrow body of content that relates directly to those three components .

Let’s look at an example.

If your research aims to identify factors that cultivate employee loyalty and commitment, your literature review needs to focus on existing research that identifies such factors. Simple enough, right? Well, during your review process, you will invariably come across plenty of research relating to employee loyalty and commitment, including things like:

The benefits of high employee commitment
The different types of commitment
The impact of commitment on corporate culture
The links between commitment and productivity

While all of these relate to employee commitment, they’re not focused on the research aims , objectives and questions, as they’re not identifying factors that foster employee commitment. Of course, they may still be useful in helping you justify your topic, so they’ll likely have a place somewhere in your dissertation or thesis. However, for your literature review, you need to keep things focused.

So, as you work through your literature review, always circle back to your research aims, objective and research questions and use them as a litmus test for article relevance.

Need a helping hand?

Mistake #6: Poor chapter structure and layout

Even the best content can fail to earn marks when the literature review chapter is poorly structured . Unfortunately, this is a fairly common issue, resulting in disjointed, poorly-flowing arguments that are difficult for the reader (the marker…) to follow.

The most common reason that students land up with a poor structure is that they start writing their literature review chapter without a plan or structure . Of course, as we’ve discussed before, writing is a form of thinking , so you don’t need to plan out every detail before you start writing. However, you should at least have an outline structure penned down before you hit the keyboard.

So, how should you structure your literature review?

We’ve covered literature review structure in detail previously , so I won’t go into it here. However, as a quick overview, your literature review should consist of three core sections :

The introduction section – where you outline your topic, introduce any definitions and jargon and define the scope of your literature review.
The body section – where you sink your teeth into the existing research. This can be arranged in various ways (e.g. thematically, chronologically or methodologically).
The conclusion section – where you present the key takeaways and highlight the research gap (or gaps), which lays the foundation for your study.

Another reason that students land up with a poor structure is that they start writing their literature chapter prematurely . In other words, they start writing before they’ve finished digesting the literature. This is a costly mistake, as it always results in extensive rewriting , which takes a lot longer than just doing it one step at a time. Again, it’s completely natural to do a little extra reading as thoughts crop up during the writing process, but you should complete your core reading before you start writing.

Long story short – don’t start writing your literature review without some sort of structural plan. This structure can (and likely will) evolve as you write, but you need some sort of outline as a starting point. Pro tip – check out our free literature review template to fast-track your structural outline.

Digest the literature before trying to write your lit review

Mistake #7: Plagiarism and poor referencing

This one is by far the most unforgivable literature review mistake, as it carries one of the heaviest penalties , while it is so easily avoidable .

All too often, we encounter literature reviews that, at first glance, look pretty good. However, a quick run through a plagiarism checker and it quickly becomes apparent that the student has failed to fully digest the literature they’ve reviewed and put it into their own words.

“But, the original author said it perfectly…”

I get it – sometimes the way an author phrased something is “just perfect” and you can’t find a better way to say it. In those (pretty rare) cases, you can use direct quotes (and a citation, of course). However, for the vast majority of your literature review, you need to put things into your own words .

The good news is that if you focus on integrating and synthesising the literature (as I mentioned in point 3), you shouldn’t run into this issue too often, as you’ll naturally be writing about the relationships between studies , not just about the studies themselves. Remember, if you can’t explain something simply (in your own words), you don’t really understand it.

A related issue that we see quite often is plain old-fashioned poor referencing . This can include citation and reference formatting issues (for example, Harvard or APA style errors), or just a straight out lack of references . In academic writing, if you fail to reference a source, you are effectively claiming the work as your own, which equates to plagiarism. This might seem harmless, but plagiarism is a serious form of academic misconduct and could cost you a lot more than just a few marks.

So, when you’re writing up your literature review, remember that you need to digest the content and put everything into your own words. You also need to reference the sources of any and all ideas, theories, frameworks and models you draw on.

Recap: 7 Literature Review Mistakes

We’ve covered a lot of ground in this post. Let’s quickly recap on the 7 most common literature review mistakes.

Now that you’re aware of these common mistakes, be sure to also check out our literature review walkthrough video , where to dissect an actual literature review chapter . This will give you a clear picture of what a high-quality literature review looks like and hopefully provide some inspiration for your own.

If you have any questions about these literature review mistakes, leave a comment below and we’ll do our best to answer. If you’re interested in private coaching, book an initial consultation with a friendly coach to discuss how we can move you forward.

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Literature Review Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

10 Comments

Dear GradCoach,

Thank you for making our uni student lives better. Could you kindly do a video on how to use your literature review excel template? I am sure a lot of students would appreciate that.

Thank you so much for this inlightment concerning the mistakes that should be avoided while writing a literature review chapter. It is concise and precise. You have mentioned that this chapter include three main parts; introduction, body, and conclusion. Is the theoritical frameworke considered a part of the literature review chapter, or it should be written in a seperate chapter? If it is included in the literature review, should it take place at the beginning, the middle or at the end of the chapter? Thank you one again for “unpacking” things for us.

Hi I would enjoy the video on lit review. You mentioned cataloging references, I would like the template for excel. Would you please sent me this template.

on the plagiarism and referencing what is the correct way to cite the words said by the author . What are the different methods you can use

its clear, precise and understandable many thanks affectionately yours’ Godfrey

Thanks for this wonderful resource! I am final year student and will be commencing my dissertation work soon. This course has significantly improved my understanding of dissertation and has greater value in terms of its practical applicability compared to other literature works and articles out there on the internet. I will advice my colleague students more especially first time thesis writers to make good use of this course. It’s explained in simple, plain grammar and you will greatly appreciate it.

Thanks. A lot. This was excellent. I really enjoyed it. Again thank you.

The information in this article is very useful for students and very interesting I really like your article thanks for sharing this post!

Thank you for putting more knowledge in us. Thank you for using simple you’re bless.

This article is really useful. Thanks a lot for sharing this knowledge. Please continue the journey of sharing and facilitating the young researchers.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

Reply to Danette - Allessaysexpert - […] Jansen, D. (2021, June). Writing a literature review: 7 common (and costly) mistakes to avoid. https://gradcoach.com/literature-review-mistakes/ […]
Reply to Danette - Academia Essays - […] Jansen, D. (2021, June). Writing a literature review: 7 common (and costly) mistakes to avoid. https://gradcoach.com/literature-review-mistakes/ […]

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Print Friendly

Advantages and disadvantages of literature review

This comprehensive article explores some of the advantages and disadvantages of literature review in research. Reviewing relevant literature is a key area in research, and indeed, it is a research activity in itself. It helps researchers investigate a particular topic in detail. However, it has some limitations as well.

What is literature review?

In order to understand the advantages and disadvantages of literature review, it is important to understand what a literature review is and how it differs from other methods of research. According to Jones and Gratton (2009) a literature review essentially consists of critically reading, evaluating, and organising existing literature on a topic to assess the state of knowledge in the area. It is sometimes called critical review.

A literature review is a select analysis of existing research which is relevant to a researcher’s selected topic, showing how it relates to their investigation. It explains and justifies how their investigation may help answer some of the questions or gaps in the chosen area of study (University of Reading, 2022).

A literature review is a term used in the field of research to describe a systematic and methodical investigation of the relevant literature on a particular topic. In other words, it is an analysis of existing research on a topic in order to identify any relevant studies and draw conclusions about the topic.

A literature review is not the same as a bibliography or a database search. Rather than simply listing references to sources of information, a literature review involves critically evaluating and summarizing existing research on a topic. As such, it is a much more detailed and complex process than simply searching databases and websites, and it requires a lot of effort and skills.

Advantages of literature review

Information synthesis

A literature review is a very thorough and methodical exercise. It can be used to synthesize information and draw conclusions about a particular topic. Through a careful evaluation and critical summarization, researchers can draw a clear and comprehensive picture of the chosen topic.

Familiarity with the current knowledge

According to the University of Illinois (2022), literature reviews allow researchers to gain familiarity with the existing knowledge in their selected field, as well as the boundaries and limitations of that field.

Creation of new body of knowledge

One of the key advantages of literature review is that it creates new body of knowledge. Through careful evaluation and critical summarisation, researchers can create a new body of knowledge and enrich the field of study.

Answers to a range of questions

Literature reviews help researchers analyse the existing body of knowledge to determine the answers to a range of questions concerning a particular subject.

Disadvantages of literature review

Time consuming

As a literature review involves collecting and evaluating research and summarizing the findings, it requires a significant amount of time. To conduct a comprehensive review, researchers need to read many different articles and analyse a lot of data. This means that their review will take a long time to complete.

Lack of quality sources

Researchers are expected to use a wide variety of sources of information to present a comprehensive review. However, it may sometimes be challenging for them to identify the quality sources because of the availability of huge numbers in their chosen field. It may also happen because of the lack of past empirical work, particularly if the selected topic is an unpopular one.

Descriptive writing

One of the major disadvantages of literature review is that instead of critical appreciation, some researchers end up developing reviews that are mostly descriptive. Their reviews are often more like summaries of the work of other writers and lack in criticality. It is worth noting that they must go beyond describing the literature.

Key features of literature review

Clear organisation

A literature review is typically a very critical and thorough process. Universities usually recommend students a particular structure to develop their reviews. Like all other academic writings, a review starts with an introduction and ends with a conclusion. Between the beginning and the end, researchers present the main body of the review containing the critical discussion of sources.

No obvious bias

A key feature of a literature review is that it should be very unbiased and objective. However, it should be mentioned that researchers may sometimes be influenced by their own opinions of the world.

Proper citation

One of the key features of literature review is that it must be properly cited. Researchers should include all the sources that they have used for information. They must do citations and provide a reference list by the end in line with a recognized referencing system such as Harvard.

To conclude this article, it can be said that a literature review is a type of research that seeks to examine and summarise existing research on a particular topic. It is an essential part of a dissertation/thesis. However, it is not an easy thing to handle by an inexperienced person. It also requires a lot of time and patience.

Hope you like this ‘Advantages and disadvantages of literature review’. Please share this with others to support our research work.

Author: M Rahman

M Rahman writes extensively online and offline with an emphasis on business management, marketing, and tourism. He is a lecturer in Management and Marketing. He holds an MSc in Tourism & Hospitality from the University of Sunderland. Also, graduated from Leeds Metropolitan University with a BA in Business & Management Studies and completed a DTLLS (Diploma in Teaching in the Life-Long Learning Sector) from London South Bank University.

How to be a good team player, competitive advantage for tourist destinations, advantages and disadvantages of snowball sampling.

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
Qualitative versus quantitative research
Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

Service update: Some parts of the Library’s website will be down for maintenance on August 11.

Secondary menu

Log in to your Library account
Hours and Maps
Connect from Off Campus
UC Berkeley Home

Search form

Conducting a literature review: why do a literature review, why do a literature review.

How To Find "The Literature"
Found it -- Now What?

Besides the obvious reason for students -- because it is assigned! -- a literature review helps you explore the research that has come before you, to see how your research question has (or has not) already been addressed.

You identify:

core research in the field
experts in the subject area
methodology you may want to use (or avoid)
gaps in knowledge -- or where your research would fit in

It Also Helps You:

Publish and share your findings
Justify requests for grants and other funding
Identify best practices to inform practice
Set wider context for a program evaluation
Compile information to support community organizing

Great brief overview, from NCSU

Want To Know More?

Next: How To Find "The Literature" >>
Last Updated: Apr 25, 2024 1:10 PM
URL: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/litreview

What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)

A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship, demonstrating your understanding of the topic and showing how your work contributes to the ongoing conversation in the field. Learning how to write a literature review is a critical tool for successful research. Your ability to summarize and synthesize prior research pertaining to a certain topic demonstrates your grasp on the topic of study, and assists in the learning process.

What is the purpose of literature review , a. habitat loss and species extinction: , b. range shifts and phenological changes: , c. ocean acidification and coral reefs: , d. adaptive strategies and conservation efforts: .

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:
Decide on the Scope of Your Review:
Select Databases for Searches:
Conduct Searches and Keep Track:
Review the Literature:
Organize and Write Your Literature Review:
How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

Frequently asked questions

What is a literature review .

A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the existing literature, establishes the context for their own research, and contributes to scholarly conversations on the topic. One of the purposes of a literature review is also to help researchers avoid duplicating previous work and ensure that their research is informed by and builds upon the existing body of knowledge.

A literature review serves several important purposes within academic and research contexts. Here are some key objectives and functions of a literature review: 2

1. Contextualizing the Research Problem: The literature review provides a background and context for the research problem under investigation. It helps to situate the study within the existing body of knowledge.

2. Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: By identifying gaps, contradictions, or areas requiring further research, the researcher can shape the research question and justify the significance of the study. This is crucial for ensuring that the new research contributes something novel to the field.

Find academic papers related to your research topic faster. Try Research on Paperpal

3. Understanding Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Literature reviews help researchers gain an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in previous studies. This aids in the development of a theoretical framework for the current research.

4. Providing Methodological Insights: Another purpose of literature reviews is that it allows researchers to learn about the methodologies employed in previous studies. This can help in choosing appropriate research methods for the current study and avoiding pitfalls that others may have encountered.

5. Establishing Credibility: A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with existing scholarship, establishing their credibility and expertise in the field. It also helps in building a solid foundation for the new research.

6. Informing Hypotheses or Research Questions: The literature review guides the formulation of hypotheses or research questions by highlighting relevant findings and areas of uncertainty in existing literature.

Literature review example

Let’s delve deeper with a literature review example: Let’s say your literature review is about the impact of climate change on biodiversity. You might format your literature review into sections such as the effects of climate change on habitat loss and species extinction, phenological changes, and marine biodiversity. Each section would then summarize and analyze relevant studies in those areas, highlighting key findings and identifying gaps in the research. The review would conclude by emphasizing the need for further research on specific aspects of the relationship between climate change and biodiversity. The following literature review template provides a glimpse into the recommended literature review structure and content, demonstrating how research findings are organized around specific themes within a broader topic.

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

Climate change is a global phenomenon with far-reaching consequences, including significant impacts on biodiversity. This literature review synthesizes key findings from various studies:

Climate change-induced alterations in temperature and precipitation patterns contribute to habitat loss, affecting numerous species (Thomas et al., 2004). The review discusses how these changes increase the risk of extinction, particularly for species with specific habitat requirements.

Observations of range shifts and changes in the timing of biological events (phenology) are documented in response to changing climatic conditions (Parmesan & Yohe, 2003). These shifts affect ecosystems and may lead to mismatches between species and their resources.

The review explores the impact of climate change on marine biodiversity, emphasizing ocean acidification’s threat to coral reefs (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). Changes in pH levels negatively affect coral calcification, disrupting the delicate balance of marine ecosystems.

Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the literature review discusses various adaptive strategies adopted by species and conservation efforts aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change on biodiversity (Hannah et al., 2007). It emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches for effective conservation planning.

Strengthen your literature review with factual insights. Try Research on Paperpal for free!

How to write a good literature review

Writing a literature review involves summarizing and synthesizing existing research on a particular topic. A good literature review format should include the following elements.

Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for your literature review, providing context and introducing the main focus of your review.

Opening Statement: Begin with a general statement about the broader topic and its significance in the field.
Scope and Purpose: Clearly define the scope of your literature review. Explain the specific research question or objective you aim to address.
Organizational Framework: Briefly outline the structure of your literature review, indicating how you will categorize and discuss the existing research.
Significance of the Study: Highlight why your literature review is important and how it contributes to the understanding of the chosen topic.
Thesis Statement: Conclude the introduction with a concise thesis statement that outlines the main argument or perspective you will develop in the body of the literature review.

Body: The body of the literature review is where you provide a comprehensive analysis of existing literature, grouping studies based on themes, methodologies, or other relevant criteria.

Organize by Theme or Concept: Group studies that share common themes, concepts, or methodologies. Discuss each theme or concept in detail, summarizing key findings and identifying gaps or areas of disagreement.
Critical Analysis: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each study. Discuss the methodologies used, the quality of evidence, and the overall contribution of each work to the understanding of the topic.
Synthesis of Findings: Synthesize the information from different studies to highlight trends, patterns, or areas of consensus in the literature.
Identification of Gaps: Discuss any gaps or limitations in the existing research and explain how your review contributes to filling these gaps.
Transition between Sections: Provide smooth transitions between different themes or concepts to maintain the flow of your literature review.

Write and Cite as yo u go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free!

Conclusion: The conclusion of your literature review should summarize the main findings, highlight the contributions of the review, and suggest avenues for future research.

Summary of Key Findings: Recap the main findings from the literature and restate how they contribute to your research question or objective.
Contributions to the Field: Discuss the overall contribution of your literature review to the existing knowledge in the field.
Implications and Applications: Explore the practical implications of the findings and suggest how they might impact future research or practice.
Recommendations for Future Research: Identify areas that require further investigation and propose potential directions for future research in the field.
Final Thoughts: Conclude with a final reflection on the importance of your literature review and its relevance to the broader academic community.

Conducting a literature review

Conducting a literature review is an essential step in research that involves reviewing and analyzing existing literature on a specific topic. It’s important to know how to do a literature review effectively, so here are the steps to follow: 1

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

Select a topic that is relevant to your field of study.
Clearly define your research question or objective. Determine what specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore?

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

Determine the timeframe for your literature review. Are you focusing on recent developments, or do you want a historical overview?
Consider the geographical scope. Is your review global, or are you focusing on a specific region?
Define the inclusion and exclusion criteria. What types of sources will you include? Are there specific types of studies or publications you will exclude?

Select Databases for Searches:

Identify relevant databases for your field. Examples include PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar.
Consider searching in library catalogs, institutional repositories, and specialized databases related to your topic.

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

Develop a systematic search strategy using keywords, Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), and other search techniques.
Record and document your search strategy for transparency and replicability.
Keep track of the articles, including publication details, abstracts, and links. Use citation management tools like EndNote, Zotero, or Mendeley to organize your references.

Review the Literature:

Evaluate the relevance and quality of each source. Consider the methodology, sample size, and results of studies.
Organize the literature by themes or key concepts. Identify patterns, trends, and gaps in the existing research.
Summarize key findings and arguments from each source. Compare and contrast different perspectives.
Identify areas where there is a consensus in the literature and where there are conflicting opinions.
Provide critical analysis and synthesis of the literature. What are the strengths and weaknesses of existing research?

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

Literature review outline should be based on themes, chronological order, or methodological approaches.
Write a clear and coherent narrative that synthesizes the information gathered.
Use proper citations for each source and ensure consistency in your citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.).
Conclude your literature review by summarizing key findings, identifying gaps, and suggesting areas for future research.

Whether you’re exploring a new research field or finding new angles to develop an existing topic, sifting through hundreds of papers can take more time than you have to spare. But what if you could find science-backed insights with verified citations in seconds? That’s the power of Paperpal’s new Research feature!

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

Paperpal, an AI writing assistant, integrates powerful academic search capabilities within its writing platform. With the Research | Cite feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface. It also allows you auto-cite references in 10,000+ styles and save relevant references in your Citation Library. By eliminating the need to switch tabs to find answers to all your research questions, Paperpal saves time and helps you stay focused on your writing.

Here’s how to use the Research feature:

Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research | Cite” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations.

Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access.
Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references in 10,000+ styles into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review.

The literature review sample and detailed advice on writing and conducting a review will help you produce a well-structured report. But remember that a good literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. By combining effortless research with an easy citation process, Paperpal Research streamlines the literature review process and empowers you to write faster and with more confidence. Try Paperpal Research now and see for yourself.

A literature review is a critical and comprehensive analysis of existing literature (published and unpublished works) on a specific topic or research question and provides a synthesis of the current state of knowledge in a particular field. A well-conducted literature review is crucial for researchers to build upon existing knowledge, avoid duplication of efforts, and contribute to the advancement of their field. It also helps researchers situate their work within a broader context and facilitates the development of a sound theoretical and conceptual framework for their studies.

Literature review is a crucial component of research writing, providing a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. The aim is to keep professionals up to date by providing an understanding of ongoing developments within a specific field, including research methods, and experimental techniques used in that field, and present that knowledge in the form of a written report. Also, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the scholar in his or her field.

Before writing a literature review, it’s essential to undertake several preparatory steps to ensure that your review is well-researched, organized, and focused. This includes choosing a topic of general interest to you and doing exploratory research on that topic, writing an annotated bibliography, and noting major points, especially those that relate to the position you have taken on the topic.

Literature reviews and academic research papers are essential components of scholarly work but serve different purposes within the academic realm. 3 A literature review aims to provide a foundation for understanding the current state of research on a particular topic, identify gaps or controversies, and lay the groundwork for future research. Therefore, it draws heavily from existing academic sources, including books, journal articles, and other scholarly publications. In contrast, an academic research paper aims to present new knowledge, contribute to the academic discourse, and advance the understanding of a specific research question. Therefore, it involves a mix of existing literature (in the introduction and literature review sections) and original data or findings obtained through research methods.

Literature reviews are essential components of academic and research papers, and various strategies can be employed to conduct them effectively. If you want to know how to write a literature review for a research paper, here are four common approaches that are often used by researchers. Chronological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the chronological order of publication. It helps to trace the development of a topic over time, showing how ideas, theories, and research have evolved. Thematic Review: Thematic reviews focus on identifying and analyzing themes or topics that cut across different studies. Instead of organizing the literature chronologically, it is grouped by key themes or concepts, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of various aspects of the topic. Methodological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the research methods employed in different studies. It helps to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies and allows the reader to evaluate the reliability and validity of the research findings. Theoretical Review: A theoretical review examines the literature based on the theoretical frameworks used in different studies. This approach helps to identify the key theories that have been applied to the topic and assess their contributions to the understanding of the subject. It’s important to note that these strategies are not mutually exclusive, and a literature review may combine elements of more than one approach. The choice of strategy depends on the research question, the nature of the literature available, and the goals of the review. Additionally, other strategies, such as integrative reviews or systematic reviews, may be employed depending on the specific requirements of the research.

The literature review format can vary depending on the specific publication guidelines. However, there are some common elements and structures that are often followed. Here is a general guideline for the format of a literature review: Introduction: Provide an overview of the topic. Define the scope and purpose of the literature review. State the research question or objective. Body: Organize the literature by themes, concepts, or chronology. Critically analyze and evaluate each source. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the studies. Highlight any methodological limitations or biases. Identify patterns, connections, or contradictions in the existing research. Conclusion: Summarize the key points discussed in the literature review. Highlight the research gap. Address the research question or objective stated in the introduction. Highlight the contributions of the review and suggest directions for future research.

Both annotated bibliographies and literature reviews involve the examination of scholarly sources. While annotated bibliographies focus on individual sources with brief annotations, literature reviews provide a more in-depth, integrated, and comprehensive analysis of existing literature on a specific topic. The key differences are as follows:

	Annotated Bibliography	Literature Review
Purpose	List of citations of books, articles, and other sources with a brief description (annotation) of each source.	Comprehensive and critical analysis of existing literature on a specific topic.
Focus	Summary and evaluation of each source, including its relevance, methodology, and key findings.	Provides an overview of the current state of knowledge on a particular subject and identifies gaps, trends, and patterns in existing literature.
Structure	Each citation is followed by a concise paragraph (annotation) that describes the source’s content, methodology, and its contribution to the topic.	The literature review is organized thematically or chronologically and involves a synthesis of the findings from different sources to build a narrative or argument.
Length	Typically 100-200 words	Length of literature review ranges from a few pages to several chapters
Independence	Each source is treated separately, with less emphasis on synthesizing the information across sources.	The writer synthesizes information from multiple sources to present a cohesive overview of the topic.

References

Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write a literature review.  Journal of criminal justice education ,  24 (2), 218-234.
Pan, M. L. (2016).  Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches . Taylor & Francis.
Cantero, C. (2019). How to write a literature review.  San José State University Writing Center .

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 22+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!

6 Tips for Post-Doc Researchers to Take Their Career to the Next Level

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, academic integrity vs academic dishonesty: types & examples, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , the ai revolution: authors’ role in upholding academic..., the future of academia: how ai tools are..., how to write a research proposal: (with examples..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide).

+44 (0) 207 391 9032

Since 2006, Oxbridge Essays has been the UK’s leading paid essay-writing and dissertation service

We have helped 10,000s of undergraduate, Masters and PhD students to maximise their grades in essays, dissertations, model-exam answers, applications and other materials. If you would like a free chat about your project with one of our UK staff, then please just reach out on one of the methods below.

A literature review is an essential part of any academic research paper, thesis, or dissertation. It provides a thorough examination of existing research on a particular topic, allowing the researcher to identify gaps, areas of agreement or disagreement, and emerging trends in the field. In this post, we’ll delve into the definition of a literature review, explore the different types of literature reviews, and provide examples of literature review structures that can guide your own work. Additionally, we’ll offer tips on how to craft a compelling literature review that strengthens the foundation of your research.

Literature Review Meaning

The term "literature review" refers to a comprehensive survey of the scholarly works, books, journal articles, and other sources relevant to a particular research topic. Its primary purpose is to offer a critical evaluation of the existing body of knowledge. The literature review helps set the context for the research question, showing what has already been explored and where gaps in knowledge or methodological limitations may exist. By examining various sources, you can assess how your research fits into the broader conversation within your field. The literature review also provides the foundation for your argument, helping to justify the importance of your research and explain how it contributes to the ongoing academic discussion.

Why Is a Literature Review Important?

A literature review is not just a summary of previous research but a critical analysis of the work that has been done in a particular area of study. It helps demonstrate your understanding of the topic and situates your work within the existing academic landscape. By conducting a literature review, you ensure that your research is not redundant and identify the unique contributions your study can make. Furthermore, the literature review informs your methodology, highlighting which methods have been successful in previous studies and which have encountered limitations. By understanding what has worked before, you can avoid potential pitfalls and build upon the successes of earlier researchers.

Literature Review Structure

The structure of a literature review can vary depending on the nature of your research and the field of study. However, the most common literature review structure includes several key components:

Introduction :This section outlines the scope of the literature review, defines the key terms, and states the overall purpose of the review. It provides the reader with an understanding of what the review will cover.
Thematic Organisation : The literature is often organised thematically, grouping together works that address similar aspects of the research topic. Themes can relate to theoretical approaches, methodologies, or different interpretations of key issues.
Critical Evaluation : The body of the literature review should not only summarise the existing research but also critically evaluate it. This might involve identifying strengths and weaknesses in methodologies, assessing the reliability of findings, and discussing how well the research supports the claims made.
Conclusion : The conclusion should summarise the main findings of the review, restate the key themes, and highlight gaps in the research that your study will address. It should also reflect on how the literature review has shaped your own research design.

Types of Literature Reviews

There are several different forms of literature reviews, each with a distinct focus and structure. Understanding these types can help you choose the approach that best fits your research needs. Here are some of the most common types of literature reviews:

Narrative Literature Review : This is the most traditional form of literature review. It provides a comprehensive summary and analysis of the literature on a particular topic. Narrative reviews are often broad in scope and provide an overview of key themes and trends.
Systematic Literature Review : This type of review involves a rigorous, structured process that aims to identify all relevant studies on a specific research question. Systematic reviews follow a clearly defined methodology, including specific criteria for selecting and analysing studies. They are commonly used in fields such as healthcare, where a comprehensive synthesis of evidence is needed.
Scoping Review : Clearly outline your main argument or position. This should guide the direction of your essay.
Scoping Review : A scoping review is used to map the key concepts, sources, and evidence in a research area. It is often the first step before a systematic review and is useful for identifying gaps in the literature and guiding further research.
Meta-Analysis : This is a form of literature review that uses statistical techniques to combine the results of multiple studies. Meta-analyses are typically used to provide an overall estimate of the effect size for a particular intervention or phenomenon.
Integrative Review : An integrative review synthesises qualitative and quantitative data to provide a more holistic view of the research on a particular topic. It aims to generate new perspectives by integrating findings from different types of studies.
Critical Review : This type of literature review goes beyond merely describing the literature. A critical review analyses and synthesises the research, evaluating its strengths and weaknesses and offering new insights and perspectives on the topic.

Short Example of a Literature Review

Below is an example of the literature review from a dissertation on climate change policies. The example demonstrates how to structure a literature review and critically engage with the literature:

Introduction of the Literature Review

Climate change has been a topic of growing concern over the past few decades, with numerous policies introduced globally to mitigate its effects. This review examines the existing literature on climate change policies, focusing on the effectiveness of carbon pricing, renewable energy subsidies, and regulatory approaches. The review aims to highlight the strengths and limitations of these policies and identify gaps in the research that future studies should address.

Thematic Organisation

The literature is organised into three main themes: carbon pricing mechanisms, renewable energy subsidies, and regulatory approaches to emissions reduction. Each theme is analysed in detail, examining the key findings of previous research and assessing the impact of these policies on greenhouse gas emissions.

Critical Evaluation

The review finds that while carbon pricing mechanisms have been effective in reducing emissions in some contexts, their success is heavily dependent on political and economic factors. Renewable energy subsidies have contributed to significant increases in renewable energy capacity, but their long-term sustainability remains in question. Regulatory approaches, while often politically contentious, have proven to be effective in certain jurisdictions.

The literature review concludes that although significant progress has been made in the development of climate change policies, further research is needed to evaluate the long-term impacts of these policies and to explore new approaches that may be more effective in reducing emissions.

Key Considerations

Writing a literature review can be a complex task, but it is a vital part of the research process. By understanding the meaning of a literature review, familiarising yourself with different forms of literature reviews, and following a clear structure, you can create a review that enhances your research project and demonstrates your knowledge of the field.

Top 10 tips for writing a dissertation methodology

Advice for successfully writing a dissertation, how to structure your dissertation in 2024, writing services.

Essay Plans
Critical Reviews
Literature Reviews
Presentations
Dissertation Title Creation
Dissertation Proposals
Dissertation Chapters
PhD Proposals
Journal Publication
CV Writing Service
Business Proofreading Services

Editing Services

Proofreading Service
Editing Service
Academic Editing Service

Additional Services

Marking Services
Consultation Calls
Personal Statements
Tutoring Services

Our Company

Frequently Asked Questions
Become a Writer

Terms & Policies

Fair Use Policy
Policy for Students in England
Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Editing Service Examples
[email protected]
Contact Form

Payment Methods

Cryptocurrency payments.

A Systematic Literature Review on Flexible Strategies and Performance Indicators for Supply Chain Resilience

REVIEW PAPERS
Open access
Published: 10 September 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

Ananna Paul 1 &
Suvash C. Saha ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9962-8919 1

Supply chain resilience is a widely useful concept for managing risk and disruption. Designing strategies for preparedness, response, and recovery can help businesses to mitigate risks and disruptions. Among them, flexible strategies can effectively improve supply chain resilience. In the literature, several studies have considered different types of flexible strategies and investigated their impacts on supply chain resilience. However, a systematic literature review (SLR) paper on this topic can further help to understand the scientific progress, research gaps, and avenues for future research. Hence, this study aims to explore how the literature has contributed to the area of flexible strategies and the impact on supply chain resilience performance. To achieve our objective, we apply an SLR methodology to identify themes such as research areas and key findings, contexts and industry sectors, methodologies, and key strategies and performance indicators in the connection between flexible strategies and supply chain resilience. The findings show that many studies connect flexible strategies to supply chain resilience. However, research gaps exist in analysing relationships between flexible strategies and performance, conducting comparative studies, developing dynamic resilience plans, applying flexible strategies, conducting theoretically grounded empirical studies, and applying multiple analytical tools to develop decision-making models for supply chain resilience. Finally, this study suggests several future research opportunities to advance the research on the topic. The findings can be a benchmark for researchers who are interested in conducting research in the area of flexible strategies and supply chain resilience.

Explore related subjects

Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Supply chain management is critical in supplying, producing, and distributing goods and services to consumers and communities. However, any risks, disruptions, and uncertainties at any supply chain stage could make the whole operation vulnerable (Paul et al., 2017 ). The ultimate consequences could include delivery and supply delays, demand unfulfilment, and loss of revenue and business goodwill (Rahman et al., 2022 ). Hence, developing a resilient supply chain to absorb disruptions and keep operations going is important.

Supply chain resilience is defined by the preparedness and ability to respond to recover from and deal with disruptions (Ponis & Koronis, 2012 ; Ribeiro & Barbosa-Povoa, 2018 ; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015 ). Preparedness means taking proactive actions, such as assessing risk and disruption factors and planning for strategies and resources (Paul & Chowdhury, 2020 ; Rahman et al., 2022 ). Meanwhile, response and recovery are reactive actions. Response includes the ability to quickly and accurately sense the impacts of a disruption and respond to mitigate such impacts (Scholten et al., 2020 ). For example, swiftly accessing alternative suppliers and emergency sources in case of a supply disruption can help mitigate the consequences. Recovery includes the planning and replanning for a future period after the occurrence of a disruption to bring the plan to the normal stage (Paul et al., 2017 ). For example, utilising alternative suppliers and resources to revise the supply chain plan for a certain period after the occurrence of supply disruption mitigates the impacts and helps restore the original plan. Recovery requires a sophisticated plan that utilises appropriate mitigation strategies. Preparedness, response, and recovery are well connected, as response and recovery can be difficult without good preparedness.

The flexible supply chain is a popular concept for managing variability in supply chains (Dhillon et al., 2023 ; Varma et al., 2024 ; Wadhwa et al., 2008 ). Variability includes changes in demand, processing time, lead time, and so on. Supply chain flexible strategies include flexibility in design, supply, manufacturing, transportation, and logistics. It also connects the flexibility of supply chain partners, such as flexible suppliers, manufacturing plants, logistics, and transportation.

Supply chain variabilities are well connected to risks and uncertainties. Flexible strategies can help manage supply chain uncertainties, risks, and variabilities (Tang & Tomlin, 2008 ; Yi et al., 2011 ). For example, utilising multiple suppliers and safety inventory can be useful to mitigate supply risks and uncertainties. The literature shows that flexible strategies effectively build resilient supply chains and can help manage risk and uncertainty and improve supply chain resilience by preparing well and/or enhancing capabilities to respond and recover (Chowdhury et al., 2024 ; Chunsheng et al., 2020 ; Dwivedi et al., 2023 ; Kamalahmadi et al., 2022 ; Kazancoglu et al., 2022 ; Mackay et al., 2020 ; Piprani et al., 2022 ; Rajesh, 2021 ; Sharma et al., 2023 ; Tang & Tomlin, 2008 ).

In the literature, several studies explore the usefulness of flexible strategies to improve supply chain resilience. Moreover, a few review papers exist in the literature which analysed supply chain resilience with drivers, vulnerabilities, risks and impacts, and robustness (Shishodia et al., 2023 ), supply chain resilience strategies (Rahman et al., 2022 ), framework, barriers, and strategies for supply chain resilience (Shashi et al., 2020 ), and recovery ability for supply chain resilience (Mandal, 2014 ). However, a systematic literature review (SLR) and content analysis of previously published papers on flexible strategies and supply chain resilience are non-existent. An SLR and content analysis are very helpful for researchers to understand the progress and development and plan for future research. Accordingly, this review article develops the following research questions (RQs).

RQ1: What contributions have been made in the connection between flexible strategies and supply chain resilience?

RQ2: What are the emerging research opportunities in the area of flexible strategies and supply chain resilience?

To answer the above RQs, this paper investigates flexible strategies and performance indicators for supply chain resilience by conducting an SLR and analysing articles under different themes, such as research area and key findings, context and industry sectors, methodologies, key dimensions, strategies, and performance indicators. Finally, this study also analyses the research gaps and suggests a number of meaningful future research opportunities.

The rest of the paper is organised as follows. Section “ Review Methodologies ” describes the review methodologies. Section “ Analysing Reviewed Articles ” analyses previous articles on flexible strategies for supply chain resilience. Research gaps and future research directions are provided in Sect. “ Research gaps and Future Research Opportunities ”. Finally, Sect. “ Conclusions ” provides conclusions and limitations of the study.

Review Methodologies

In this paper, an SLR process is utilised to analyse the content of the reviewed articles (Tranfield et al., 2003 ). An SLR provides a more accurate literature search and in-depth content analysis than other methods, such as generic and bibliometric reviews. It also helps in the systematic and critical analysis of the content of previously published articles.

In this paper, Scopus was the primary database to identify articles on flexible strategies and performance indicators for supply chain resilience. The following search criteria were used:

Keywords: flexible strategy, supply chain, resilience, performance.

Language: English.

Source type: Journal.

Search timeline: up to 2023.

The initial search using keywords identified a total of 138 articles. After filtering for language and source type, 46 articles were removed and 92 articles remained.

Next, we read the article’s title, abstract, and content and applied inclusion and exclusion criteria to finalise the articles. The inclusion criteria were: (i) articles focused on flexible strategies for different aspects of supply chain resilience, and (ii) both the keywords “flexible” or “flexibility” and “resilience” appeared in the main text. The exclusion criteria were if one or more keywords mentioned in the implications and/or in the reference list were available, but the article did not focus on the flexible strategies in supply chain resilience. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 30 articles were removed and 62 articles remained.

Finally, other databases, such as Google Scholar and Web of Science, were used to search the articles. The reference check was also conducted to ensure that all relevant articles were included in the analysis. These checks did not include any new articles. A total of 62 articles were finalised for the analysis in this review. The review methodology is presented in Fig. 1 .

Review methodology

Analysing Reviewed Articles

This section analyses the finalised articles in key different dimensions, including subject areas, key contributions and findings, contexts of the studies, methodologies used, key sectors (manufacturing or service), different flexible strategies for supply chain resilience, and performance indicators for supply chain resilience.

Key Subject Areas

We analysed the subject areas for the 62 articles. As flexibility and supply chain resilience is a multidisciplinary research area, the articles were expected to contribute to several subject areas. Thus, we observed the common subject areas to be business, management and accounting, engineering, decision sciences, computer science, and social sciences. The key subject areas for the reviewed articles are presented in Fig. 2 .

Key subject areas of the reviewed articles

Key Contributions and Findings of Previous Studies

Over the last few years, many studies have contributed in the area of flexible strategies and supply chain resilience. We observed that eight articles used a literature review approach, while the remaining 54 were technical studies. This section delves into the details of previous contributions and findings.

Previously Published Review Articles

From the systematic review, we identified eight review articles in the area of supply chain resilience. The main contributions and findings of those review articles are summarised in Table 1 . The previous review articles analysed the literature in different supply chain resilience dimensions, including drivers, vulnerabilities, risks and impacts, and robustness (Shishodia et al., 2023 ), resilience strategies (Rahman et al., 2022 ), framework, barriers, and strategies (Shashi et al., 2020 ), and recovery (Mandal, 2014 ). Significant research gaps exist in reviewing the literature on how different flexible strategies are applied to improve supply chain resilience and the potential future research directions. This paper fills these gaps.

Table 1 shows that five articles used a systematic literature review approach, while others used bibliometric analysis and literature review along with expert opinions and conceptual modelling/framework.

Contributions and Findings of Technical Studies

We analysed the contributions and main findings of 54 technical studies and observed the following main areas of study.

Analysing resilience strategies using varieties of methodologies (Kummer et al., 2022 ; Nagariya et al., 2023 ; Purvis et al., 2016 ; Wang et al., 2016 ),

Analysing impacts of strategies on performance (Alvarenga et al., 2023 ; Hamidu et al., 2024 ; Isti’anah et al., 2021 ; Lin et al., 2023 ; Nguyen et al., 2022 ; Xu et al., 2023 ),

Exploring capabilities for supply chain resilience (Faruquee et al., 2023 ; Shweta et al., 2023 ; Um & Han, 2021 ; Zhou et al., 2022 ),

Evaluating critical factors, enablers, and antecedents for supply chain resilience (Das et al., 2022 ; Pu et al., 2023a , 2023b ; Sangari & Dashtpeyma, 2019 ),

Analysing impacts of disruption on supply chains (Ivanov, 2022 ),

Designing/re-designing supply chain networks to improve resilience (Alikhani et al., 2021 ; Carvalho et al., 2012 ; Fattahi et al., 2020 ), and

Selecting suppliers for supply chain resilience (Suryadi & Rau, 2023 ).

The main contributions and findings are summarised in Table 2 .

This section analyses different contexts used in the literature. The contexts include both industry sectors and regions of data collection and applications. We observed that 38 studies used a specific industry context, while 41 papers used a country/regional context in their studies.

Industry Context

Our analysis of the articles shows that both single and multiple sectors have been considered in previous studies. Fourteen studies considered multiple industry sectors, and 24 studies considered a single industry sector. The single industry sectors include maritime (Isti’anah et al., 2021 ; Praharsi et al., 2021 ; Zavitsas et al., 2018 ), food (Li et al., 2022 ; Purvis et al., 2016 ), healthcare (Vimal 2022a ; Shweta et al., 2023 ), and textile and apparel sectors (Fahimnia et al., 2018 ; Nagariya et al., 2023 ). The other single industry sectors are container handling, delivery services, e-commerce of clothing and grocery, industrialised construction, copper industry, retail, ICT industry, automotive, sportswear, and electronic sectors.

Previous studies also considered multiple industry sectors. For example, Alvarenga et al. ( 2023 ) considered multiple sectors, including chemical and petroleum, food and beverage, and machinery sectors. Maharjan and Kato ( 2023 ) considered multiple sectors, including manufacturing, assembly, agricultural machinery parts, apparel business, and trading companies. Zhou et al. ( 2022 ) considered multiple sectors, including electronics and appliances, metals, machinery and engineering, construction materials, textiles, and clothing. Gölgeci and Kuivalainen ( 2020 ) considered multiple sectors, including chemical and pharmaceutical, food and beverage, construction equipment, retail, textile, clothing, and apparel.

Country/Regional Context

Forty-one studies considered a specific country/regional context. Several studies considered global or multiple regions. For example, Alvarenga et al. ( 2023 ) considered a global context, including North America, Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, and Oceania countries. Faruquee et al. ( 2023 ) collected data from the USA and the UK. Das et al. ( 2022 ) collected data from countries in Asia, Europe, and the Americas.

The majority of the studies considered a single country/regional context. Among them, seven studies considered India (Altay et al., 2018 ; Vimal et al., 2022a , 2022b ; Nagariya et al., 2023 ; Rajesh, 2016 ; Shweta et al., 2023 ; Suryawanshi et al., 2021 ), four studies considered Iran (Alikhani et al., 2021 ; Fattahi et al., 2020 ; Moosavi & Hosseini, 2021 ; Suryadi & Rau, 2023 ), three studies considered China (Pu et al., 2023a , 2023b ; Zhu & Wu, 2022 ) and three studies considered Ghana (Hamidu et al., 2023a , 2023b , 2024 ) in the country context.

The details of industry sectors and country/regional contexts are presented in Table 3 .

Methodologies Used

Both qualitative and quantitative methods have been applied to analyse strategies and performance indicators in supply chain resilience. Qualitative methods include literature reviews (see Table 1 ), interviews (Chen et al., 2019 ; Lin et al., 2023 ; Maharjan & Kato, 2023 ; Purvis et al., 2016 ; Silva et al., 2023 ), conceptual modelling (Mackay et al., 2020 ), DMAIC framework (Praharsi et al., 2021 ), and FEWSION for the community resilience process (Ryan et al., 2021 ).

Quantitative methods include structural equation modelling (Alvarenga et al., 2023 ; Gölgeci & Kuivalainen, 2020 ; Pu et al., 2023a , 2023b ; Purvis et al., 2016 ; Um & Han, 2021 ), mathematical programming (Alikhani et al., 2021 ; Mao et al., 2020 ; Mikhail et al., 2019 ; Suryawanshi et al., 2021 ; Zavitsas et al., 2018 ), MCDM methods (Das et al., 2022 ; Shweta et al., 2023 ), simulation (Ivanov, 2022 ; Kummer et al., 2022 ; Moosavi & Hosseini, 2021 ; Tan et al., 2020 ), partial least squares (Altay et al., 2018 ), and regression analysis (Donadoni et al., 2018 ; Trabucco & De Giovanni, 2021 ).

Table 4 provides a summary of the methods used.

Several studies integrated multiple methods such as PLS-SEM (Ekanayake et al., 2021 ; Hamidu et al., 2023a , 2023b ; Nguyen et al., 2022 ), Fuzzy DEMATEL and best–worst method (Shweta et al., 2023 ), analytic hierarchy process and linear programming (Suryadi & Rau, 2023 ), analysis of variance and polynomial regression (Faruquee et al., 2023 ), best–worst method and fuzzy TOPSIS (Vima et al., 2022b ), Delphi method and best–worst method (Nagariya et al., 2023 ), AHP and DEMATEL (Das et al., 2022 ), mixed-integer linear programming and Monte Carlo simulation (Suryawanshi et al., 2021 ), interpretive structural modelling and fuzzy analytical network process (Sangari & Dashtpeyma, 2019 ), and discrete-event simulation and regression analysis (Macdonald et al., 2018 ).

Case studies were combined with other methods in several studies. For example, Purvis et al. ( 2016 ) conducted a case study in the UK’s food and drink sector to analyse supply chain resilience strategies. Maharjan and Kato ( 2023 ) included a case study from Japan’s manufacturing, agricultural, apparel, and trading companies to identify the current resilience status. Lin et al. ( 2023 ) provided a case study from delivery services in the UK to investigate supply chain resilience in responding to disruptions. Silva et al. ( 2023 ) discussed the findings from coffee-producing firms in Brazil to explore the relationship between sustainability and resilience. Carvalho et al. ( 2012 ) explained a case study from the automotive sector in Portugal to analyse the scenario-based design for supply chain resilience.

Key Sectors (Manufacturing or Service)

The reviewed articles show that previous studies considered both the manufacturing and service sectors as the key application areas. Figure 3 provides a summary of key sectors. Figure 3 shows that 49 out of 62 articles considered a sector, with most (35 articles) focusing on the manufacturing sector. Nine studies considered both manufacturing and service sectors, and only five considered the service sector. Sect. “ Contexts ” shows the specific contexts previous studies considered.

Summary of key sectors

Different Flexible Strategies for Supply Chain Resilience

We observed that numerous strategies have been used for supply chain resilience. We have categorised them as supply, manufacturing/operational strategies, transportation and distribution strategies, and supply chain levels.

The most common supply strategies were multiple suppliers/sourcing, improving collaboration with suppliers/partners, backup/alternative suppliers, supplier development, and building trust with suppliers. These strategies help to improve supply chain flexibility and supply chain resilience. For example, multiple suppliers/sourcing includes having multiple suppliers or sources of materials for mitigating risks and disruptions (Ekanayake et al., 2021 ; Mikhail et al., 2019 ; Praharsi et al., 2021 ; Rahman et al., 2022 ). It improves supply flexibility, further allowing for the diversification of the supply base. Similarly, another popular strategy in supply chain resilience is improving collaboration with suppliers/partners. It enhances communication processes, information, and resource sharing and working together to deal with risks and uncertainties in their supply chains (Chen et al., 2019 ; Faruquee et al., 2023 ; Sangari & Dashtpeyma, 2019 ; Silva et al., 2023 ).

Flexible transportation/distribution channels were the most widely applied transportation and distribution strategy. This includes flexible routes, flexible transportation capacities, and multiple distribution channels, spanning online, and physical distributions (Faruquee et al., 2023 ; Hohenstein et al., 2015 ; Massari & Giannoccaro, 2021 ; Suryadi & Rau, 2023 ). This strategy is very effective in improving resilience in transportation and distribution, particularly, and the supply chain, in general. The other flexible strategies included alternative shipment/transportation modes and backup distribution centres.

Strategies such as utilising extra capacity, resource allocation/reallocation, managing the quality of products, and using safety stock were widely applied in manufacturing/operations. Extra capacities in manufacturing plants improve production flexibilities and help mitigate supply and demand uncertainties (Altay et al., 2018 ; Fattahi et al., 2020 ; Rahman et al., 2022 ). Other strategies, such as resource allocation/reallocation, managing the quality of products, and using safety stock, are also effective in dealing with risk and disruption in supply chains and improving business reputation.

In supply chain-level strategies, the common strategies were adopting digital technologies, knowledge/information sharing, business continuity/contingency planning, and multi-skilled labour. The recent studies highlighted that adopting digital technologies at the supply chain level could improve communication, tracking, data analysis, and information processing (Alvarenga et al., 2023 ; Nagariya et al., 2023 ; Nguyen et al., 2022 ; Trabucco & De Giovanni, 2021 ). All these contribute to improving supply chain performance and resilience. Similarly, the literature proved that supply chain-level strategies help improve operational, financial, and reputational performance by enhancing supply chain resilience.

The full list of flexible strategies for supply chain resilience and their categories are presented in Table 5 .

Performance Indicators for Supply Chain Resilience

Supply chain resilience studies have used several performance indicators to measure performance, including financial, operational, reputational, and supply chain performance.

In supply chain resilience, financial performance indicators include cost efficiency, return on investment, market share, sales growth, profit, and return on sales and assets. Cost efficiency is the most significant performance indicator (Alikhani et al., 2021 ; Donadoni et al., 2018 ; Fattahi et al., 2020 ; Nagariya et al., 2023 ). Organisations set their desired price while maintaining the quality of products or services and improving customer satisfaction. Another significant performance indicator is profit (Hohenstein et al., 2015 ; Mikhail et al., 2019 ; Moosavi & Hosseini, 2021 ; Shashi et al., 2020 ). Profit is a goal for organisations to enhance overall performance. Return on investment (Gölgeci & Kuivalainen, 2020 ; Juan & Li, 2023 ; Trabucco & De Giovanni, 2021 ) and market share (Hohenstein et al., 2015 ; Juan & Li, 2023 ; Pu et al., 2023a , 2023b ; Zhou et al., 2022 ) are also used to evaluate organisational performance.

The most common operational performance indicators in supply chain resilience are on-time delivery, demand fulfilment, and enhanced operational efficiency and delivery time. On-time delivery (Rajesh, 2021 ; Shweta et al., 2023 ; Trabucco & De Giovanni, 2021 ) improves the efficiency of business processes and fulfils customer commitment. Customer order processing depends on demand fulfilment. Demand fulfilment (Moosavi & Hosseini, 2021 ; Rajesh, 2021 ; Tan et al., 2020 ) positively impacts the firm’s performance in the competitive market. Enhanced operational efficiency (Praharsi et al., 2021 ) and delivery time (Mao et al., 2020 ) increases customer satisfaction and improves business performance.

In supply chain resilience, reputational performance indicators include customer satisfaction, service-level improvement, customer loyalty, meeting customer satisfaction/request, quality performance, and corporate image. Service-level improvement (Hohenstein et al., 2015 ; Isti’anah et al., 2021 ; Praharsi et al., 2021 ) is one of the most important performance indicators. Maximising service level increases the overall performance of organisations. Customer satisfaction is the second most crucial reputational performance indicator (Gölgeci & Kuivalainen, 2020 ; Zhu & Wu, 2022 ). Customer satisfaction with a product/service enhances organisational reputation.

Resilience performance also depends on supply chain performance indicators such as restoring material flow, quickly moving to a desirable state, lead time reduction, supply chain visibility, recovery time, and response time. Among these indicators, lead time reduction (Donadoni et al., 2018 ; Ivanov, 2022 ; Nagariya et al., 2023 ), recovery time (Altay et al., 2018 ; Singh & Singh, 2019 ), and response time (Altay et al., 2018 ; Faruquee et al., 2023 ) are the significant performance indicators. Lead time reduction minimises the time duration of the product or service process. Reduction of recovery time and response time enhances the efficiency of organisational performance.

Table 6 summarises the list of performance indicators in supply chain resilience.

Mapping of Strategies and Performance Indicators

The literature review shows that flexible strategies are useful in improving supply chain performance. This section explains the mapping between different flexible strategies and performance indications and discusses the strategies that effectively improve or influence performance.

From the literature analysis, we have observed that “improving collaboration with suppliers/partners” influences all major resilience performances, including cost efficiency, return on investment, market share, profit, customer satisfaction, service-level improvement, on-time delivery, demand fulfilment, lead time reduction, recovery time, and response time (Chen et al., 2019 ; Donadoni et al., 2018 ; Faruquee et al., 2023 ; Hohenstein et al., 2015 ; Juan & Li, 2023 ; Ladeira et al., 2021 ; Moosavi & Hosseini, 2021 ; Praharsi et al., 2021 ; Shashi et al., 2020 ; Shweta et al., 2023 ; Suryadi & Rau, 2023 ; Zhou et al., 2022 ; Zhu & Wu, 2022 ).

Similarly, multiple suppliers/sourcing, backup/alternative suppliers, flexible transportation/distribution channels, utilising extra capacity, adopting digital technologies, knowledge/information sharing, and multi-skilled labour are effective in improving resilience performance in supply chain management.

Table 7 provides the mapping between different strategies and their influence on resilience performance indicators.

Research Gaps and Future Research Opportunities

We have observed the following research gaps from the literature review and have suggested future research opportunities.

Relationship Between Strategies and Performance In Supply Chain Resilience

Very few studies analysed the relationship between strategies and performance in supply chain resilience. While a few studies did, they only considered a limited number of strategies and performance indicators (Donadoni et al., 2018 ; Faruquee et al., 2023 ; Gölgeci & Kuivalainen, 2020 ; Isti’anah et al., 2021 ; Juan & Li, 2023 ; Mikhail et al., 2019 ; Nagariya et al., 2023 ; Praharsi et al., 2021 ; Pu et al., 2023a , 2023b ; Shishodia et al., 2023 ; Suryadi & Rau, 2023 ; Trabucco & De Giovanni, 2021 ; Wang et al., 2016 ; Zhou et al., 2022 ). For example, Shishodia et al. ( 2023 ) considered managing product quality, multiple sourcing, demand aggregation, flexible transportation systems, backup suppliers, fortification of partners, and risk sharing as strategies and cost efficiency and lead time reduction as performance indicators. Similar analyses were found in other studies. This makes the literature less comprehensive in analysing the thorough impacts of different strategies, individually and combined, on supply chain resilience performance.

To close this gap and improve the literature, we propose studies to consider the holistic list of strategies and performance indicators (as shown in Sects. “ Different Flexible Strategies for Supply Chain Resilience ” and “ Performance Indicators for Supply Chain Resilience ”) and analyse how major strategies influence major performance indicators in supply chain resilience.

Comparative Studies

There is a significant research gap in the literature regarding comparative studies. Very few studies considered both the manufacturing and service sectors and multiple industry sectors (Alikhani et al., 2021 ; Alvarenga et al., 2023 ; Nguyen et al., 2022 ; Singh & Singh, 2019 ; Zhu & Wu, 2022 ). However, the literature has research gaps for comparative studies between developed and developing economies, large and small and medium enterprises, and their longitudinal analyses. Hence, there is a gap in generalising the findings.

To contribute to this area, we suggest conducting the following studies.

Comparative studies of flexible strategies and/or performance indicators for developed and developing economies.

Comparative studies of flexible strategies and/or performance indicators between large, small, and medium enterprises.

Analysis of findings over time for different economies and enterprises.

Developing models for generalising the findings for different economies and enterprises.

Service Sectors

Service sectors get less attention in the literature even though they are dominant in many countries. Only a few studies considered service sectors (Fattahi et al., 2020 ; Isti’anah et al., 2021 ; Lin et al., 2023 ; Suryawanshi et al., 2021 ). Hence, the literature provided few findings on supply chain resilience and their strategies and performance indicators in service sectors.

We suggest conducting more studies for service sectors, including the analysis of different flexible strategies used by different service sectors and how they influence service performance to improve supply chain resilience.

Dynamic Plans for Supply Chain Resilience

Many studies have developed models and frameworks for analysis strategies and performance indicators in supply chain resilience (Juan & Li, 2023 ; Shishodia et al., 2023 ; Suryadi & Rau, 2023 ). Still, there is a gap in the literature on developing dynamic resilience plans for the changed environment. As risks and disruptions change over time, it is important to change the plan and its flexible strategies to ensure supply chains can deal with the impacts of the changing environment and improve resilience. These types of studies on flexible strategies and supply chain resilience are non-existent in the current literature.

To contribute to this area, we suggest developing the following studies.

Developing dynamic and flexible strategies for supply chain resilience for different disruption scenarios.

Analysing the impacts of dynamic strategies on resilience performance over time.

Developing dynamic supply chain resilience models for preparedness, response, and recovery considering different flexible strategies.

Comparing the findings for different flexible strategies to obtain the most suitable plans for dynamic supply chain resilience plans.

Theoretically Grounded Studies

Few studies developed theoretically grounded empirical models (Alvarenga et al., 2023 ; Gölgeci & Kuivalainen, 2020 ; Juan & Li, 2023 ; Ladeira et al., 2021 ; Pu et al., 2023a , 2023b ; Singh & Singh, 2019 ; Um & Han, 2021 ; Zhou et al., 2022 ; Zhu & Wu, 2022 ). However, there is a gap in the literature in relation to applying emergent theories such as the awareness–motivation–capability framework.

In the future, we propose considering theories from multiple disciplines to develop and test models to analyse the impacts of flexible strategies on supply chain resilience, including in dynamic and changed environments.

Analytical Studies

According to the literature review, different studies applied different analytical tools, such as mathematical programming and simulation approaches (Alikhani et al., 2021 ; Fattahi et al., 2020 ; Ivanov, 2022 ; Kummer et al., 2022 ; Mikhail et al., 2019 ; Pu et al., 2023a , 2023b ; Zavitsas et al., 2018 ). Integrating multiple analytical tools improves the quality of findings and the decision-making process in supply chain management. The flexible strategies and supply chain resilience literature has a gap in relation to integrating multiple analytical tools for analysing strategies and performance indicators.

In future, we propose applying multiple analytical tools to develop decision-making models for practitioners. We also suggest dividing the studies into different sections, applying analytical tools and connecting them again to improve the quality of findings.

Conclusions

The main objective of this study was to critically review the existing studies that considered flexible strategies for supply chain resilience. To fulfil this objective, we applied an SLR technique and analysed 62 related studies in the domain of contributions and findings, research contexts and business sectors, methodologies, different flexible strategies and performance indicators, and relationship mapping between flexible strategies and performance indicators.

The main contributions of this study are: (i) conducting an SLR in flexible strategies for supply chain resilience, which has not yet been explored in the literature, (ii) critically analysing the existing studies and presenting the findings, and (iii) proposing future research directions based on the identified research gaps.

The main findings indicated that more research is needed to analyse holistic relationships between flexible strategies and supply chain performance. Moreover, the service sector should be studied more, as it has been widely ignored in the literature thus far. Future research should also consider developing dynamic resilience plans using flexible strategies. Finally, more theoretically grounded and analytical studies should be conducted in the area of flexible strategies and supply chain resilience.

However, this review article has some limitations. First, we consider only journal articles published until 2023 and written in English. Second, the scope of the study was limited to flexible strategies and performance indicators used in the area of supply chain resilience. In the future, the timeline of published articles and the scope of the study can be further broadened. As this SLR paper provided a critical review, a summary of existing studies, and significant future research directions, the findings of the study can be used as a benchmark for future research in flexible strategies for supply chain resilience.

Key Questions

What contributions have been made in the connection between flexible strategies and supply chain resilience?

What are the emerging research opportunities in the area of flexible strategies and supply chain resilience?

There is no funding for this article.

Alikhani, R., Torabi, S. A., & Altay, N. (2021). Retail supply chain network design with concurrent resilience capabilities. International Journal of Production Economics, 234 , 108042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108042

Article Google Scholar

Altay, N., Gunasekaran, A., Dubey, R., & Childe, S. J. (2018). Agility and resilience as antecedents of supply chain performance under moderating effects of organizational culture within the humanitarian setting: A dynamic capability view. Production Planning and Control, 29 (14), 1158–1174. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018.1542174

Alvarenga, M. Z., de Oliveira, M. P. V., & de Oliveira, T. A. G. F. (2023). The impact of using digital technologies on supply chain resilience and robustness: The role of memory under the covid-19 outbreak. Supply Chain Management, 28 (5), 825–842. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-06-2022-0217

Carvalho, H., Barroso, A. P., MacHado, V. H., Azevedo, S., & Cruz-Machado, V. (2012). Supply chain redesign for resilience using simulation. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 62 (1), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2011.10.003

Chen, H. Y., Das, A., & Ivanov, D. (2019). Building resilience and managing post-disruption supply chain recovery: Lessons from the information and communication technology industry. International Journal of Information Management, 49 , 330–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.06.002

Chowdhury, M. M. H., Chowdhury, P., Quaddus, M., Rahman, K. W., & Shahriar, S. (2024). Flexibility in enhancing supply chain resilience: developing a resilience capability portfolio in the event of severe disruption. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management , 25 (2), 395–417.

Chunsheng, L., Wong, C. W. Y., Yang, C. C., Shang, K. C., & Lirn, T. (2020). Value of supply chain resilience: Roles of culture, flexibility, and integration. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 50 (1), 80–100. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-02-2019-0041

Das, D., Datta, A., Kumar, P., Kazancoglu, Y., & Ram, M. (2022). Building supply chain resilience in the era of COVID-19: An AHP-DEMATEL approach. Operations Management Research, 15 (1–2), 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-021-00200-4

Dhillon, M. K., Rafi-ul-Shan, P. M., Amar, H., Sher, F., & Ahmed, S. (2023). Flexible green supply chain management in emerging economies: a systematic literature review. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 24 (1), 1–28

Donadoni, M., Caniato, F., & Cagliano, R. (2018). Linking product complexity, disruption and performance: The moderating role of supply chain resilience. Supply Chain Forum, 19 (4), 300–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/16258312.2018.1551039

Dwivedi, A., Srivastava, S., Agrawal, D., Jha, A., & Paul, S. K. (2023). Analyzing the inter-relationships of business recovery challenges in the manufacturing industry: implications for post-pandemic supply chain resilience. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 24 (1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-023-00365-w

Ekanayake, E. M. A. C., Shen, G. Q. P., Kumaraswamy, M. M., Owusu, E. K., & Saka, A. B. (2021). Modeling supply chain resilience in industrialized construction: A Hong Kong case. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 147 (11), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0002188

Fahimnia, B., & Jabbarzadeh, A. (2016). Marrying supply chain sustainability and resilience: A match made in heaven. Transportation Research Part e: Logistics and Transportation Review, 91 , 306–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2016.02.007

Fahimnia, B., Jabbarzadeh, A., & Sarkis, J. (2018). Greening versus resilience: A supply chain design perspective. Transportation Research Part e: Logistics and Transportation Review, 119 , 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2018.09.005

Faruquee, M., Paulraj, A., & Irawan, C. A. (2023). A typology of supply chain resilience: recognising the multi-capability nature of proactive and reactive contexts. Production Planning and Control , in press, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2023.2202151

Fattahi, M., Govindan, K., & Maihami, R. (2020). Stochastic optimization of disruption-driven supply chain network design with a new resilience metric. International Journal of Production Economics, 230 , 107755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107755

Gölgeci, I., & Kuivalainen, O. (2020). Does social capital matter for supply chain resilience? The role of absorptive capacity and marketing-supply chain management alignment. Industrial Marketing Management, 84 , 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.05.006

Grzybowska, K., & Stachowiak, A. (2022). Global changes and disruptions in supply chains—preliminary research to sustainable resilience of supply chains. Energies, 15 , 4579. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15134579

Hamidu, Z., Boachie-Mensah, F. O., & Issau, K. (2023a). Supply chain resilience and performance of manufacturing firms: Role of supply chain disruption. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 34 (3), 361–382. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-08-2022-0307

Hamidu, Z., Mensah, B. D., Issau, K., & Asafo-Adjei, E. (2023b). Does technological innovation matter in the nexus between supply chain resilience and performance of manufacturing firms in a developing economy? Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 34 (6), 981–1003. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-11-2022-0384

Hamidu, Z., Issau, K., Boachie-Mensah, F. O., & Asafo-Adjei, E. (2024). On the interplay of supply chain network complexity on the nexus between supply chain resilience and performance. Benchmarking, 31 (5), 1590–1610. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-09-2022-0551

Hohenstein, N. O., Feise, E., Hartmann, E., & Giunipero, L. (2015). Research on the phenomenon of supply chain resilience: A systematic review and paths for further investigation. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 45 , 90–117. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-05-2013-0128

Isti’anah, P. R., Praharsi, Y., Maharani, A., & Wee, H. M. (2021). Supply chain resilience analysis using the quality function deployment (QFD) approach in a freight forwarding company. Reliability: Theory and Applications, 16 (2), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.24412/1932-2321-2021-264-15-26

Ivanov, D. (2022). Blackout and supply chains: Cross-structural ripple effect, performance, resilience and viability impact analysis. Annals of Operations Research, in Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-022-04754-9

Juan, S. J., & Li, E. Y. (2023). Financial performance of firms with supply chains during the COVID-19 pandemic: The roles of dynamic capability and supply chain resilience. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 43 (5), 712–737. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-04-2022-0249

Kamalahmadi, M., Shekarian, M., & Mellat Parast, M. (2022). The impact of flexibility and redundancy on improving supply chain resilience to disruptions. International Journal of Production Research, 60 (6), 1992–2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2021.1883759

Kazancoglu, I., Ozbiltekin-Pala, M., Mangla, S. K., Kazancoglu, Y., & Jabeen, F. (2022). Role of flexibility, agility and responsiveness for sustainable supply chain resilience during COVID-19. Journal of Cleaner Production, 362 , 132431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132431

Kummer, Y., Fikar, C., Burtscher, J., Strobl, M., Fuchs, R., Domig, K. J., & Hirsch, P. (2022). Facilitating resilience during an african swine fever outbreak in the austrian pork supply chain through hybrid simulation modelling. Agriculture (Switzerland), 12 (3), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12030352

Ladeira, M. B., de Oliveira, M. P. V., de Sousa, P. R., & Barbosa, M. W. (2021). Firm’s supply chain agility enabling resilience and performance in turmoil times. International Journal of Agile Systems and Management, 14 (2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJASM.2021.118068

Li, Z., Liu, Q., Ye, C., Dong, M., & Zheng, Y. (2022). Achieving resilience: Resilient price and quality strategies of fresh food dual-channel supply chain considering the disruption. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14 (11), 6645. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116645

Lin, Y., Chen, A., Zhong, S., Giannikas, V., Lomas, C., & Worth, T. (2023). Service supply chain resilience: A social-ecological perspective on last-mile delivery operations. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 43 (1), 140–165. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-03-2022-0180

Macdonald, J. R., Zobel, C. W., Melnyk, S. A., & Griffis, S. E. (2018). Supply chain risk and resilience: Theory building through structured experiments and simulation. International Journal of Production Research, 56 (12), 4337–4355. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1421787

Mackay, J., Munoz, A., & Pepper, M. (2020). Conceptualising redundancy and flexibility towards supply chain robustness and resilience. Journal of Risk Research, 23 (12), 1541–1561. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2019.1694964

Maharjan, R., & Kato, H. (2023). Logistics and supply chain resilience of Japanese companies: Perspectives from Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Logistics, 7 (2), 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics7020027

Mandal, S. (2014). Supply chain resilience: A state-of-the-art review and research directions. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 5 (4), 427–453. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-03-2013-0003

Mao, X., Lou, X., Yuan, C., & Zhou, J. (2020). Resilience-based restoration model for supply chain networks. Mathematics, 8 (2), 163. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8020163

Massari, G. F., & Giannoccaro, I. (2021). Investigating the effect of horizontal coopetition on supply chain resilience in complex and turbulent environments. International Journal of Production Economics, 237 , 108150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108150

Mikhail, M., El-Beheiry, M., & Afia, N. (2019). Incorporating resilience determinants in supply chain network design model. Journal of Modelling in Management, 14 (3), 738–753. https://doi.org/10.1108/JM2-05-2018-0057

Moosavi, J., & Hosseini, S. (2021). Simulation-based assessment of supply chain resilience with consideration of recovery strategies in the COVID-19 pandemic context. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 160 , 107593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107593

Nagariya, R., Mukherjee, S., Baral, M. M., & Chittipaka, V. (2023). Analyzing blockchain-based supply chain resilience strategies: Resource-based perspective. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, in Press. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-07-2022-0330

Nguyen, D. N., Nguyen, T. T. H., Nguyen, T. T., Nguyen, X. H., Do, T. K. T., & Ngo, H. N. (2022). The effect of supply chain finance on supply chain risk, supply chain risk resilience, and performance of vietnam smes in global supply chain. Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 10 (1), 225–238. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.uscm.2021.9.005

Olivares-Aguila, J., & Vital-Soto, A. (2021). Supply chain resilience roadmaps for major disruptions. Logistics, 5 (4), 78. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics5040078

Paul, S. K., & Chowdhury, P. (2020). Strategies for managing the impacts of disruptions during COVID-19: An example of toilet paper. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 21 , 283–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-020-00248-4

Paul, S. K., Sarker, R., & Essam, D. (2017). A quantitative model for disruption mitigation in a supply chain. European Journal of Operational Research, 257 (3), 881–895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.08.035

Piprani, A. Z., Jaafar, N. I., Ali, S. M., Mubarik, M. S., & Shahbaz, M. (2022). Multi-dimensional supply chain flexibility and supply chain resilience: The role of supply chain risks exposure. Operations Management Research, 15 (1–2), 307–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-021-00232-w

Ponis, S. T., & Koronis, E. (2012). Supply Chain Resilience? Definition of concept and its formative elements. The Journal of Applied Business Research, 28 (5), 921–935. https://doi.org/10.19030/jabr.v28i5.7234

Praharsi, Y., Jamiin, M. A., Suhardjito, G., & Wee, H. M. (2021). The application of Lean Six Sigma and supply chain resilience in maritime industry during the era of COVID-19. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 12 (4), 800–834. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-11-2020-0196

Pu, G., Qiao, W., & Feng, Z. (2023a). Antecedents and outcomes of supply chain resilience: Integrating dynamic capabilities and relational perspective. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 31 (4), 706–726. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12473

Pu, W., Ma, S., & Yan, X. (2023b). Geographical relevance-based multi-period optimization for e-commerce supply chain resilience strategies under disruption risks. International Journal of Production Research, in Press. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2023.2217937

Purvis, L., Spall, S., Naim, M., & Spiegler, V. (2016). Developing a resilient supply chain strategy during ‘boom’ and ‘bust.’ Production Planning and Control, 27 (7–8), 579–590. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2016.1165306

Rahman, T., Paul, S. K., Shukla, N., Agarwal, R., & Taghikhah, F. (2022). Supply chain resilience initiatives and strategies: A systematic review. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 170 , 108317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2022.108317

Rajesh, R. (2016). Forecasting supply chain resilience performance using grey prediction. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 20 , 42–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2016.09.006

Rajesh, R. (2021). Flexible business strategies to enhance resilience in manufacturing supply chains: An empirical study. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 60 , 903–919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2020.10.010

Ribeiro, J. P., & Barbosa-Povoa, A. (2018). Supply chain resilience: Definitions and quantitative modelling approaches–A literature review. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 115 , 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.11.006

Ryan, S. M., Roberts, E., Hibbett, E., Bloom, N., Haden, C., Rushforth, R. R., Pfeiffer, K., & Ruddell, B. L. (2021). The FEWSION for community resilience (F4R) process: Building local technical and social capacity for critical supply chain resilience. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 9 , 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.601220

Sangari, M. S., & Dashtpeyma, M. (2019). An integrated framework of supply chain resilience enablers: A hybrid ISM-FANP approach. International Journal of Business Excellence, 18 (2), 242–268. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBEX.2019.099558

Scholten, K., Stevenson, M., & van Donk, D. P. (2020). Dealing with the unpredictable: Supply chain resilience. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 40 (1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-01-2020-789

Shashi, Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., & Ertz, M. (2020). Managing supply chain resilience to pursue business and environmental strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29 (3), 1215–1246. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2428

Sharma, B., Mittal, M. L., Soni, G., & Ramtiyal, B. (2023). An implementation framework for resiliency assessment in a supply chain. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management , 24 (4), 591–614

Shishodia, A., Sharma, R., Rajesh, R., & Munim, Z. H. (2023). Supply chain resilience: A review, conceptual framework and future research. International Journal of Logistics Management, 34 (4), 879–908. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-03-2021-0169

Shweta, K., & D., & Chandra, D. (2023). A hybrid framework to model resilience in the generic medicine supply chain of MSMEs. Benchmarking, 30 (6), 2189–2224. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-11-2021-0697

Silva, M. E., Pereira, M. M. O., & Hendry, L. C. (2023). Embracing change in tandem: Resilience and sustainability together transforming supply chains. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 43 (1), 166–196. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-09-2022-0625

Singh, N. P., & Singh, S. (2019). Building supply chain risk resilience: Role of big data analytics in supply chain disruption mitigation. Benchmarking, 26 (7), 2318–2342. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-10-2018-0346

Suryadi, A., & Rau, H. (2023). Considering region risks and mitigation strategies in the supplier selection process for improving supply chain resilience. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 181 , 109288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2023.109288

Suryawanshi, P., Dutta, P., Varun, L., & Deepak, G. (2021). Sustainable and resilience planning for the supply chain of online hyperlocal grocery services. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 28 , 496–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.05.001

Tan, W. J., Cai, W., & Zhang, A. N. (2020). Structural-aware simulation analysis of supply chain resilience. International Journal of Production Research, 58 (17), 5175–5195. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1705421

Tang, C., & Tomlin, B. (2008). The power of flexibility for mitigating supply chain risks. International Journal of Production Economics, 116 (1), 12–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2008.07.008

Trabucco, M., & De Giovanni, P. (2021). Achieving resilience and business sustainability during COVID-19: The role of lean supply chain practices and digitalization. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13 (22), 12369. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212369

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14 (3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375

Tukamuhabwa, B. R., Stevenson, M., Busby, J., & Zorzini, M. (2015). Supply chain resilience: Definition, review and theoretical foundations for further study. International Journal of Production Research, 53 (18), 5592–5623. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1037934

Um, J., & Han, N. (2021). Understanding the relationships between global supply chain risk and supply chain resilience: The role of mitigating strategies. Supply Chain Management, 26 (2), 240–255. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-06-2020-0248

Varma, S., Singh, N., & Patra, A. (2024). Supply chain flexibility: Unravelling the research trajectory through citation path analysis. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 25 (2), 199–222

Vimal, K. E. K., Nadeem, S. P., Meledathu Sunil, S., Suresh, G., Sanjeev, N., & Kandasamy, J. (2022a). Modelling the strategies for improving maturity and resilience in medical oxygen supply chain through digital technologies. Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Sourcing, 15 (4), 566–595. https://doi.org/10.1108/JGOSS-10-2021-0088

Vimal, K. E. K., Nadeem, S. P., Ravichandran, M., Ethirajan, M., & Kandasamy, J. (2022b). Resilience strategies to recover from the cascading ripple effect in a copper supply chain through project management. Operations Management Research, 15 , 440–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-021-00231-x

Wadhwa, S., Saxena, A., & Chan, F. T. S. (2008). Framework for flexibility in dynamic supply chain management. International Journal of Production Research, 46 (6), 1373–1404. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540600570432

Wang, X., Herty, M., & Zhao, L. (2016). Contingent rerouting for enhancing supply chain resilience from supplier behavior perspective. International Transactions in Operational Research, 23 (4), 775–796. https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.12151

Xu, B., Liu, W., Li, J., Yang, Y., Wen, F., & Song, H. (2023). Resilience measurement and dynamic optimization of container logistics supply chain under adverse events. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 180 , 109202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2023.109202

Yi, C. Y., Ngai, E. W. T., & Moon, K. (2011). Supply chain flexibility in an uncertain environment: Exploratory findings from five case studies. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 16 (4), 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541111139080

Zavala-Alcívar, A., Verdecho, M. J., & Alfaro-Saiz, J. J. (2020). A conceptual framework to manage resilience and increase sustainability in the supply chain. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12 (16), 6300. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12166300

Zavitsas, K., Zis, T., & Bell, M. G. H. (2018). The impact of flexible environmental policy on maritime supply chain resilience. Transport Policy, 72 , 116–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.09.020

Zhou, J., Hu, L., Yu, Y., Zhang, J. Z., & Zheng, L. J. (2022). Impacts of IT capability and supply chain collaboration on supply chain resilience: Empirical evidence from China in COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, in Press. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-03-2022-0091

Zhu, X., & Wu, Y. J. (2022). How does supply chain resilience affect supply chain performance? The Mediating Effect of Sustainability. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14 (21), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114626

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Engineering and IT, School of Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia

Ananna Paul & Suvash C. Saha

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Suvash C. Saha .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

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/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Paul, A., Saha, S.C. A Systematic Literature Review on Flexible Strategies and Performance Indicators for Supply Chain Resilience. Glob J Flex Syst Manag (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-024-00415-x

Download citation

Received : 16 April 2024

Accepted : 20 August 2024

Published : 10 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-024-00415-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Flexible strategies
Performance indicators
Supply chain resilience
Systematic literature review
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Information

Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

Active Journals
Find a Journal
Proceedings Series
For Authors
For Reviewers
For Editors
For Librarians
For Publishers
For Societies
For Conference Organizers
Open Access Policy
Institutional Open Access Program
Special Issues Guidelines
Editorial Process
Research and Publication Ethics
Article Processing Charges
Testimonials
Preprints.org
SciProfiles
Encyclopedia

Article Menu

Subscribe SciFeed
Author Biographies
Google Scholar
on Google Scholar
Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Blockchain technology adoption for disrupting fintech functionalities: a systematic literature review for corporate management, supply chain, banking industry, and stock markets.

1. Introduction

2. research background, 2.1. literature review, 2.2. bca/fintech application domain areas, 3. methodology.

Timeframe: 2013–2022;
Data source: Journal articles and conference papers published in English;
Search keywords and terms: (“corporate management” OR “supply chain” OR “banking industry” OR “stock markets”) AND (“Blockchain technology adoption”);
Searched databases: Web of Science, Scopus, and MDPI archives.
Expectation: Best BCA practices have been identified;
Language: English;
Years considered (SLR time scope): 2013–2022;
Publication identity: DOI;
Outcomes: Disrupting FinTech functionalities.
Articles about theory rather than practice;
Non-English articles;
Articles published before 1 January 2013;
Non-peer-reviewed articles.
Smart contract utilization advances BCA/FinTech loyalty, commitment, and faithfulness.
Credit corruption problems in BCA/FinTech are considered trust issues in digital transactions (banking industry, stock markets, government, etc.).
Information sharing problems in BCA/FinTech are considered fidelity issues in markets, investments, and financial services.
Corporate ESG activities facilitate BCA integrity.
Corporate DEI initiatives enhance BCA traceability.
By adopting cryptocurrencies, the BCA/FinTech becomes more efficient, scalable, and durable with anonymity, security, privacy, and transparency functionalities.

4. Research Strategy for Exhausting the Literature—A Multidisciplinary Approach (Fourth Methodology Criterion)

4.1. find top-cited articles in library databases, 4.2. define an article as a prototype and find related articles, 4.3. use clarivate’s web of knowledge, 4.4. use of sage navigator, 4.5. get librarian assistance for research consultations and recorded video research consultations, 5. results and analysis.

RQ1	What are the financial variables (BCA functionalities) of present BCA/FinTech applications and their implications in a particular business sector?
RQ2	What are the issues and opportunities associated with financial variables operated as BCA functionalities in a particular business sector?
RQ3	What are the implications, theoretical contributions (hypotheses, propositions, etc.), questions, potentiality, and outlook of BCA/FinTech issues, risks, limitations, and opportunities in a particular business sector?

Expectation: Best BCA practices have been identified
Language: English
Years considered (SLR time scope): 2013–2022,
Publication identity: DOI
Outcomes: Disrupting FinTech functionalities
Articles about theory rather than practice
Non-English articles
Articles published before 1 January 2013
Non-peer-reviewed articles

5.1. Corporate Management

[Key finding #1] Smart contract utilization advances BCA/FinTech loyalty, commitment, and faithfulness.
[Key finding #2] Corporate ESG activities facilitate BCA integrity.
[Key finding #3] Credit corruption problems in BCA/FinTech are considered trust issues in digital transactions.
[Key finding #4] Corporate DEI initiatives enhance BCA traceability and accountability.
[Key finding #5] By adopting cryptocurrencies the BCA/FinTech become more efficient, scalable, and durable with anonymity, security, privacy, and transparency functionalities.

5.2. Supply Chain

[Key finding #3] Credit corruption problems in BCA/FinTech are considered trust issues in digital transactions (banking industry, stock markets, government, etc.).
[Key finding #6] Information-sharing problems in BCA/FinTech are considered fidelity issues in markets, investments, and financial services.

5.3. Banking Industry

[Key finding #6] Information sharing problems in BCA/FinTech are considered fidelity issues in markets, investments, and financial services.

5.4. Stock Markets

[Key finding #3] Credit corruption problems in BCA/FinTech are considered trust issues in digital transactions (stock markets, etc.).

5.5. Derived Quantitative Assessment

Bibliographic Research for Corporate BCA for Disrupting FinTech Functionalities (BCA/FinTech Assumptions)		Corporate Business and Financial Functions (BCA/FinTech Application Domain)
Key Findings	Key Findings (Assumptions)	Corporate Management	Supply Chain	Banking Industry	Stock Markets
#1	Smart contract utilization advances BCA/FinTech loyalty, commitment, and faithfulness.	√	√	√	√
#2	Corporate ESG activities facilitate BCA integrity.	√	√
#3	Credit corruption problems in BCA/FinTech are considered trust issues in digital transactions (banking industry, stock markets, government, etc.).	√	√	√	√
#4	Corporate DEI initiatives enhance BCA traceability.	√	√
#5	By adopting cryptocurrencies the BCA/FinTech become more efficient, scalable, and durable with anonymity, security, privacy, and transparency functionalities.	√		√	√
#6	Information sharing problems in BCA/FinTech are considered fidelity issues in markets, investments, and financial services.		√	√	√

5.6. BCA Effect on Critical Financial Variables

5.6.1. first layer of the proposed slr research sequence (rq1: what are the financial variables (bca functionalities) of present bca/fintech applications and their implications in a particular business sector).

Click here to enlarge figure

5.6.2. Second Layer of the Proposed SLR Research Sequence (RQ2: What Are the Issues and Opportunities Associated with Financial Variables Operated as BCA Functionalities in a Particular Business Sector?)

5.6.3. third layer of the proposed slr research sequence (rq3: what are the implications, theoretical contributions (hypotheses, propositions, etc.), questions, potentiality, and outlook of bca/fintech issues, risks, limitations, and opportunities in a particular business sector), 5.7. statistics, 5.7.1. content classification statistics.

Continent or Country	BCA/FinTech Sectors (Application Domain Areas)
Continent or Country	Corporate Management	Supply Chain	Banking Industry	Stock Markets	Mean (7 Most Cited Articles in BCA/FinTech)
USA	28.57%	28.57%	14.29%	21.43%	23.21%
Europe	---	14.29%	14.29%	14.29%	10.72%
China (PRC)	28.57%	---	14.29%	14.29%	14.29%
Asia	28.57%	42.85%	42.84%	35.70%	37.49%
Canada	14.29%	14.29%	14.29%	14.29%	14.29%
	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

5.7.2. Spatial–Temporal Evolution Statistics

BCA/FinTech Application Sectors	Comments	No. of Papers from the Seven Most Cited Articles on BCA/FinTech
Stock Markets	Incremental linear growth	0	1	3	0	3	0	0	0	0
Banking Industry	Stable citing growth	0	0	2	0	2	1	0	0	2
Supply Chain.	Incremental non-linear growth	0	0	2	1	2	2	0	0	0
Corporate Management	Incremental linear growth	1	0	2	1	2	1	0	0	0
		2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022

6. Discussion

7. conclusions, 7.1. results and accomplishments, 7.2. findings and practical applications, 7.3. theoretical and practical implications, 7.4. contributions, 7.4.1. theoretical contributions, 7.4.2. practical contributions, 7.5. limitations and recommendations, 7.6. future research directions, author contributions, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

Morkunas, V.J.; Paschen, J.; Boon, E. How blockchain technologies impact your business model. Bus. Horiz. 2019 , 62 , 295–306. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Chang, V.; Baudier, P.; Zhang, H.; Xu, Q.; Zhang, J.; Arami, M. How Blockchain can impact financial services—The overview, challenges and recommendations from expert interviewees. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020 , 158 , 120166. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Varveris, D.; Styliadis, A.; Xofis, P.; Dimen, L. Tree Architecture & Blockchain Integration: An off-the-shelf Experimental Approach. WSEAS Trans. Environ. Dev. 2023 , 19 , 969–977. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Varveris, D.; Styliadis, A.; Xofis, P.; Dimen, L. Distributed and Collaborative Tree Architecture: A Low-cost Experimental Approach for Smart Forest Monitoring. Balt. J. Mod. Comput. 2023 , 11 , 653–685. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Tsitouras, A.; Papapanagos, H. Income Inequality, Economic Freedom, and Economic Growth in Greece: A Multivariate Analysis. In Advances in Empirical Economic Research, 2023, ICOAE 2022 ; Tsounis, N., Vlachvei, A., Eds.; Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Ramli, F.A.A.; Hamzah, M.I.; Wahab, S.N.; Shekhar, R. Modeling the Brand Equity and Usage Intention of QR-Code E-Wallets. FinTech 2023 , 2 , 205–220. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Bühler, M.M.; Calzada, I.; Cane, I.; Jelinek, T.; Kapoor, A.; Mannan, M.; Mehta, S.; Mookerje, V.; Nübel, K.; Pentland, A.; et al. Unlocking the Power of Digital Commons: Data Cooperatives as a Pathway for Data Sovereign, Innovative and Equitable Digital Communities. Digital 2023 , 3 , 146–171. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Anita, D.; Bhappu, T.L.; Yeo, M.L. Platform Service Designs: A Comparative Case Analysis of Technology Features, Affordances, and Constraints for Ridesharin. Digital 2022 , 2 , 320–332. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Basdekidou, V.A.; Papapanagos, H. Empirical Model for Estimating Sustainable Entrepreneurship’s Growth Potential and Positive Outlook. Balt. J. Mod. Comput. 2023 , 11 , 181–201. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Basdekidou, V.A.; Papapanagos, H. The Use of DEA for ESG Activities and DEI Initiatives Considered as “Pillar of Sustainability” for Economic Growth Assessment in Western Balkans. Digital 2024 , 4 , 572–598. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Basdekidou, V.A.; Papapanagos, H. The mediating role of the corporate culture in the relationship between Blockchain adoption and ESG performance. SSRN J. 2024 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Khan, N.; Zafar, M.; Okunlola, A.F.; Zoltan, Z.; Robert, M. Effects of Financial Inclusion on Economic Growth, Poverty, Sustainability, and Financial Efficiency: Evidence from the G20 Countries. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 12688. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Mohammad, A.; Chirchir, B. Challenges of Integrating Artificial Intelligence in Software Project Planning: A Systematic Literature Review. Digital 2024 , 4 , 555–571. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Salcedo, E.; Gupta, M. The effects of individual-level espoused national cultural values on the willingness to use Bitcoin-like blockchain currencies. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2021 , 60 , 102388. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Christidis, K.; Devetsikiotis, M. Blockchains and Smart Contracts for the Internet of Things. IEEE Access 2016 , 4 , 2292–2303. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Zheng, Z.; Xie, S.; Dai, H.; Chen, X.; Wang, H. An Overview of Blockchain Technology: Architecture, Consensus, and Future Trends. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Congress on Big Data (BigData Congress), Honolulu, HI, USA, 25–30 June 2017; pp. 557–564. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Renduchintala, T.; Alfauri, H.; Yang, Z.; Pietro, R.D.; Jain, R. A Survey of Blockchain Applications in the FinTech Sector. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022 , 8 , 185. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Zheng, Z.; Xie, S.; Dai, H.-N.; Chen, X.; Wang, H. Blockchain challenges and opportunities: A survey. Int. J. Web Grid Serv. 2018 , 14 , 352–375. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Pal, A.; Tiwari, C.K.; Haldar, N. Blockchain for business management: Applications, challenges and potentials. J. High Technol. Manag. Res. 2021 , 32 , 100414. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Saheb, T.; Mamaghani, F.H. Exploring the barriers and organizational values of blockchain adoption in the banking industry. J. High Technol. Manag. Res. 2021 , 32 , 100417. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Su, F.; Xu, C. Curbing credit corruption in China: The role of FinTech. J. Innov. Knowl. 2023 , 8 , 100292. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Zheng, K.; Zheng, L.J.; Gauthier, J.; Zhou, L.; Xu, Y.; Behl, A.; Zhang, J.Z. Blockchain technology for enterprise credit information sharing in supply chain finance. J. Innov. Knowl. 2022 , 7 , 100256. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
UN. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2015. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda (accessed on 23 January 2024).
Basdekidou, C.; Styliadis, A.D.; Argyriadis, A.; Dimen, L. A Low-cost Feasibility Training Study for DCD Children’s Perceptual-motor Therapy. Balt. J. Mod. Comput. 2023 , 11 , 726–754. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Li, Y.; Zhao, T. How Digital Transformation Enables Corporate Sustainability: Based on the Internal and External Efficiency Improvement Perspective. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5037. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Lee, C.-W.; Fu, M.-W. Conceptualizing Sustainable Business Models Aligning with Corporate Responsibility. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5015. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Huang, L.; Liu, Q. The Impact of Natural Disasters on Corporate ESG Performance: Evidence from China. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5252. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Casteleiro-Pitrez, J. Generative Artificial Intelligence Image Tools among Future Designers: A Usability, User Experience, and Emotional Analysis. Digital 2024 , 4 , 316–332. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Mohammad, A.; Abbas, Y. Key Challenges of Cloud Computing Resource Allocation in Small and Medium Enterprises. Digital 2024 , 4 , 372–388. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Liyanaarachchi, G.; Viglia, G.; Kurtaliqi, F. Addressing challenges of digital transformation with modified blockchain. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2024 , 201 , 123254. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Zheng, C. An innovative MS-VAR model with integrated financial knowledge for measuring the impact of stock market bubbles on financial security. J. Innov. Knowl. 2022 , 7 , 100207. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Sanda, O.; Pavlidis, M.; Polatidis, N. A Regulatory Readiness Assessment Framework for Blockchain Adoption in Healthcare. Digital 2022 , 2 , 65–87. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Masoud, R.; Basahel, S. The Effects of Digital Transformation on Firm Performance: The Role of Customer Experience and IT Innovation. Digital 2023 , 3 , 109–126. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Deuber, D.; Gruber, J.; Humml, M.; Ronge, V.; Scheler, N. Argumentation Schemes for Blockchain Deanonymisation. FinTech 2024 , 3 , 236–248. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Kus Khalilov, M.C.; Levi, A. A Survey on Anonymity and Privacy in Bitcoin-Like Digital Cash Systems. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2018 , 20 , 2543–2585. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
The Bitcoin Project. Bitcoin Developer Guide-Wallets. 2024. Available online: https://developer.bitcoin.org/devguide/wallets.html (accessed on 14 March 2024).
Eyal, I.; Sirer, E.G. Majority is not Enough: Bitcoin Mining is Vulnerable. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security: FC 2014 ; Christin, N., Safavi-Naini, R., Eds.; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; Volume 8437. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Kosba, A.; Miller, A.; Shi, E.; Wen, Z.; Papamanthou, C. Hawk: The Blockchain Model of Cryptography and Privacy-Preserving Smart Contracts. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), San Jose, CA, USA, 22–26 May 2016; pp. 839–858. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Yli-Huumo, J.; Ko, D.; Choi, S.; Park, S.; Smolander, K. Where Is Current Research on Blockchain Technology?—A Systematic Review. PLoS ONE 2016 , 11 , e0163477. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Luu, L.; Chu, D.-H.; Olickel, H.; Saxena, P.; Hobor, A. Making Smart Contracts Smarter. In CCS ‘16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security ; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 254–269. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Khan, M.A.; Salah, K. IoT security: Review, blockchain solutions, and open challenges. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2018 , 82 , 395–411. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Agbo, C.C.; Mahmoud, Q.H.; Eklund, J.M. Blockchain Technology in Healthcare: A Systematic Review. Healthcare 2019 , 7 , 56. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Jena, R.K. Examining the Factors Affecting the Adoption of Blockchain Technology in the Banking Sector: An Extended UTAUT Model. Int. J. Financ. Stud. 2022 , 10 , 90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Alcarria, R.; Bordel, B.; Robles, T.; Martín, D.; Manso-Callejo, M.-Á. A Blockchain-Based Authorization System for Trustworthy Resource Monitoring and Trading in Smart Communities. Sensors 2018 , 18 , 3561. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Azzi, R.; Chamoun, R.K.; Sokhn, M. The power of a blockchain-based supply chain. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2019 , 135 , 582–592. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Dissanayake, H.; Popescu, C.; Iddagoda, A. A Bibliometric Analysis of Financial Technology: Unveiling the Research Landscape. FinTech 2023 , 2 , 527–542. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Chong, T.T.L.; Wu, Y.; Su, J. The Unusual Trading Volume and Earnings Surprises in China’s Market. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2020 , 13 , 244. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Kao, Y.-C.; Shen, K.-Y.; Lee, S.-T.; Shieh, J.C.P. Selecting the Fintech Strategy for Supply Chain Finance: A Hybrid Decision Approach for Banks. Mathematics 2022 , 10 , 2393. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Yogarajan, L.; Masukujjaman, M.; Ali, M.H.; Khalid, N.; Osman, L.H.; Alam, S.S. Exploring the Hype of Blockchain Adoption in Agri-Food Supply Chain: A Systematic Literature Review. Agriculture 2023 , 13 , 1173. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Guo, Y.; Liang, C. Blockchain application and outlook in the banking industry. Financ. Innov. 2016 , 2 , 24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Chiu, J.; Koeppl, T.V. Blockchain-Based Settlement for Asset Trading, Bank of Canada Staff Working Paper, No. 2018-45, Bank of Canada, Ottawa. 2018. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Gervais, A.; Karame, G.O.; Wüst, K.; Glykantzis, V.; Ritzdorf, H.; Capkun, S. On the Security and Performance of Proof of Work Blockchains. In CCS ‘16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security ; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 3–16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
UN. United Nations Millennium Declaration. General Assembly. 2000. Available online: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_55_2.pdf (accessed on 6 January 2024).
Li, Z.F.; Lu, X.; Wang, J. Corporate Social Responsibility and Goodwill Impairment: Charitable Donations of Chinese Listed Companies. 2024. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Filip, A.; Lobo, G.J.; Paugam, L. Managerial discretion to delay the recognition of goodwill impairment: The role of enforcement. J. Bus. Financ. Account. 2021 , 48 , 36–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Kraus, S.; Breier, M.; Lim, W.M.; Dabić, M.; Kumar, S.; Kanbach, D.; Mukherjee, D.; Corvello, V.; Piñeiro-Chousa, J.; Liguori, E.; et al. Literature reviews as independent studies: Guidelines for academic practice. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2022 , 16 , 2577–2595. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Lim, W.M.; Kumar, S.; Ali, F. Advancing knowledge through literature reviews: ‘What’, ‘why’, and ‘how to contribute’. Serv. Ind. J. 2022 , 42 , 481–513. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Khan, K.S.; Kunz, R.; Kleijnen, J.; Antes, G. Five steps to conducting a systematic review. J. R. Soc. Med. 2003 , 96 , 118–121. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021 , 372 , n71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Unal, I.M.; Aysan, A.F. Fintech, Digitalization, and Blockchain in Islamic Finance: Retrospective Investigation. FinTech 2022 , 1 , 388–398. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Basdekidou, V.; Styliadou, A.A. Corporate Social Responsibility & Market Volatility: Relationship and Trading Opportunities. Int. Bus. Res. 2017 , 10 , 1–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Basdekidou, V.; Styliadou, A.A. Corporate Social Responsibility Performance & ETF Historical Market Volatility. Int. J. Econ. Financ. 2017 , 6 , 30–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Hasanagas, N.D.; Styliadis, A.D.; Papadopoulou, E.I. Environmental policy and science management: Using a scientometric-specific GIS for E-learning purposes. Int. J. Comput. Commun. Control 2010 , 5 , 171–178. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Hasanagas, N.D.; Styliadis, A.D.; Papadopoulou, E.I.; Sechidis, L.A. E-Learning & environmental policy: The case of a politico-administrative GIS. Int. J. Comput. Commun. Control 2010 , 5 , 517–524. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Varma, P.; Nijjer, S.; Sood, K.; Grima, S.; Rupeika-Apoga, R. Thematic Analysis of Financial Technology (Fintech) Influence on the Banking Industry. Risks 2022 , 10 , 186. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Tsang, K.K.; Teng, Y.; Lian, Y.; Wang, L. School management culture, emotional labor, and teacher burnout in Mainland China. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 9141. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Zyskind, G.; Nathan, O.; Pentland, A. Decentralizing Privacy: Using Blockchain to Protect Personal Data. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Security and Privacy Workshops, San Jose, CA, USA, 21–22 May 2015; pp. 180–184. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
United States District Court for the Central District of California. Criminal Complaint-United States of America v. Tibo Lousee, Klaus-Martin Frost, and Jonathan Kalla-Case No. 19MJ1843. 2019. Available online: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1159706/download (accessed on 14 March 2024).
Grewal, D.; Puccinelli, N.; Monroe, K.B. Meta-analysis: Integrating accumulated knowledge. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2018 , 46 , 9–30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Budde, L.; Benninghaus, C.; Hänggi, R.; Friedli, T. Managerial Practices for the Digital Transformation of Manufacturers. Digital 2022 , 2 , 463–483. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Erboz, G.; Abbas, H.; Nosratabadi, S. Investigating supply chain research trends amid COVID-19: A bibliometric analysis. Manag. Res. Rev. 2023 , 46 , 413–436. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Nosratabadi, S.; Zahed, R.K.; Ponkratov, V.V.; Kostyrin, E.V. Artificial Intelligence Models and Employee Lifecycle Management: A systematic Literature Review. Organizacija 2022 , 55 , 181–198. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Singh, V.K.; Singh, P.; Karmakar, M.; Leta, J.; Mayr, P. The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 2021 , 126 , 5113–5142. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Nelaturu, K.; Du, H.; Le, D.-P. A Review of Blockchain in Fintech: Taxonomy, Challenges, and Future Directions. Cryptography 2022 , 6 , 18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Kountios, G.; Kanakaris, S.; Moulogianni, C.; Bournaris, T. Strengthening AKIS for Sustainable Agricultural Features: Insights and Innovations from the European Union: A Literature Review. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 7068. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Sandra, K.-A.; Cevers, A.; Kovalenko, A.; Auzins, A. Challenges for Customs Risk Management Today: A Literature Review. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2024 , 17 , 321. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Bortey, L.; Edwards, D.J.; Roberts, C.; Rillie, I. A Review of Safety Risk Theories and Models and the Development of a Digital Highway Construction Safety Risk Model. Digital 2022 , 2 , 206–223. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Sun, Y.; Jiang, S.; Jia, W.; Wang, Y. Blockchain as a cutting-edge technology impacting business: A systematic literature review perspective. Telecommun. Policy 2022 , 46 , 102443. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Sadman, N.; Ahsan, M.M.; Rahman, A.; Siddique, Z.; Gupta, K.D. Promise of AI in DeFi, a Systematic Review. Digital 2022 , 2 , 88–103. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Bhowmik, K.; Ralescu, A. Leveraging Vector Space Similarity for Learning Cross-Lingual Word Embeddings: A Systematic Review. Digital 2021 , 1 , 145–161. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Nwaiwu, F. Review and Comparison of Conceptual Frameworks on Digital Business Transformation. J. Compet. 2018 , 10 , 86–100. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Hess, T.; Benlian, A.; Matt, C.; Wiesböck, F. How German Media Companies Defined Their Digital Transformation Strategies. MIS Q. Exec. 2016 , 15 , 103–119. [ Google Scholar ]
Reddy, S.K.; Reinartz, W. Digital Transformation and Value Creation: Sea Change Ahead. Mark. Intell. Rev. 2017 , 9 , 10–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Reinartz, W.; Wiegand, N.; Imschloss, M. The Impact of Digital Transformation on the Retailing Value Chain. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2019 , 36 , 350–366. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Vaska, S.; Massaro, M.; Bagarotto, E.M.; Dal Mas, F. The Digital Transformation of Business Model Innovation: A Structured Literature Review. Front. Psychol. 2021 , 11 , 3557. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Arjun, R.; Suprabha, K.R. Innovation and Challenges of Blockchain in Banking: A Scientometric View. Int. J. Interact. Multimed. Artif. Intell. 2020 , 6 , 7–14. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Gao, J.; Wang, H.; Shen, H. Smartly Handling Renewable Energy Instability in Supporting a Cloud Datacenter. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS), New Orleans, LA, USA, 18–22 May 2020; pp. 769–778. [ Google Scholar ]
Fardbastani, M.A.; Allahdadi, F.; Sharifi, M. Business process monitoring via decentralized complex event processing. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 2018 , 12 , 1257–1284. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Manogaran, G.; Rawal, B.S.; Saravanan, V.; Kumar, P.M.; Martínez, O.S.; Crespo, R.G.; Krishnamoorthy, S. Blockchain-Based Integrated Security Measure for Reliable Service Delegation in 6G Communication Environment. Comput. Commun. 2020 , 161 , 248–256. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Filimonau, V.; Naumova, E. The Blockchain Technology and the Scope of Its Application in Hospitality Operations. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020 , 87 , 102383. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Khelifi, H.; Luo, S.; Nour, B.; Moungla, H.; Ahmed, S.H.; Guizani, M. A Blockchain-Based Architecture for Secure VehicularNamed Data Networks. Comput. Electr. Eng. 2020 , 86 , 106715. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Tönnissen, S.; Beinke, J.H.; Teuteberg, F. Understanding Token-Based Ecosystems—A Taxonomy of Blockchain-Based Business Models of Startups. Electron. Mark. 2020 , 30 , 307–323. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Nguyen, Q.N.; Sidorova, A.; Torres, R. Artificial Intelligence in Business: A Literature Review and Research Agenda. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2022 , 50 , 7. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Geissdoerfer, M.; Vladimirova, D.; Evans, S. Sustainable Business Model Innovation: A Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018 , 198 , 401–416. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Clauss, T. Measuring Business Model Innovation: Conceptualization, Scale Development, and Proof of Performance. R&D Manag. 2017 , 47 , 385–403. [ Google Scholar ]
Moosavi, J.; Naeni, L.M.; Fathollahi-Fard, A.M.; Fiore, U. Blockchain in Supply Chain Management: A Review, Bibliometric, and Network Analysis. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021 , 1 , 1–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Suša Vugec, D.; Tomicic-Pupek, K.; Vukšic, V.B. Social business process management in practice: Overcoming the limitations of the traditional business process management. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag. 2018 , 10 , 1847979017750927. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Makowski, E.K.; Wu, L.; Gupta, P.; Tessier, P.M. Discovery-Stage Identification of Drug-Like Antibodies Using Emerging Experimental and Computational Methods. MAbs 2021 , 13 , 1895540. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Trischler, M.F.G.; Li-Ying, J. Digital Business Model Innovation: Toward Construct Clarity and Future Research Directions. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2022 , 17 , 3–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Teece, D.J. Business Models and Dynamic Capabilities. Long Range Plan. 2018 , 51 , 40–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Blaschke, M.; Cigaina, M.; Riss, U.V.; Shoshan, I. Designing Business Models for the Digital Economy. In Shaping the Digital Enterprise ; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 121–136. [ Google Scholar ]
Snihur, Y.; Zott, C.; Amit, R. Managing the Value Appropriation Dilemma in Business Model Innovation. Strategy Sci. 2021 , 6 , 22–38. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Müller, S.; Hundahl, M. IT-Driven Business Model Innovation: Sources and Ripple Effects. Int. J. E-Bus. Res. 2018 , 14 , 14–38. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Sjödin, D.; Parida, V.; Jovanovic, M.; Visnjic, I. Value Creation and Value Capture Alignment in Business Model Innovation: A Process View on Outcome-Based Business Models. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2020 , 37 , 158–183. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Grieco, C.; Michelini, L.; Iasevoli, G. Which Sharing Are We Betting On? Analyzing the Financial Attractiveness of Sharing Business Models. J. Clean. Prod. 2021 , 314 , 75–86. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Feng, Q.; He, D.; Zeadally, S.; Khan, M.K.; Kumar, N. A Survey on Privacy Protection in Blockchain System. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 2019 , 126 , 45–58. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Minatogawa, V.; Franco, M.; Pinto, J.; Batocchio, A. Business Model Innovation Influencing Factors: An Integrative Literature Review. Braz. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2018 , 15 , 610–617. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Namasudra, S.; Deka, G.C.; Johri, P.; Hosseinpour, M.; Gandomi, A.H. The revolution of blockchain: State-of-the-art and research challenges. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 2021 , 28 , 1497–1515. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Zhang, J.; Thomas, C.; FragaLamas, P.; Fernández-Caramés, T. Deploying blockchain technology in the supply chain. In Computer Security Threats ; BoD—Books on Demand: Norderstedt, Germany, 2019; Volume 57. [ Google Scholar ]
Khalifa, E. Blockchain: Technological Revolution in Business and Administration. Am. J. Manag. 2019 , 19 , 40–46. [ Google Scholar ]
Ahmad, L.; Khanji, S.; Iqbal, F.; Kamoun, F. Blockchain-based chain of custody: Towards real-time tamper-proof evidence management. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, Virtual Event, 25–28 August 2020; pp. 1–8. [ Google Scholar ]
Rebello, G.A.F.; Camilo, G.F.; Guimaraes, L.C.; de Souza, L.A.C.; Thomaz, G.A.; Duarte, O.C.M. A security and performance analysis of proof-based consensus protocols. Ann. Telecommun. 2021 , 77 , 517–537. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Borselli, A. Smart Contracts in Insurance: A Law and Futurology Perspective ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
Dutta, P.; Choi, T.-M.; Somani, S.; Butala, R. Blockchain technology in supply chain operations: Applications, challenges and research opportunities. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2020 , 142 , 102067. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Wang, Y.; Han, J.H.; Beynon-Davies, P. Understanding blockchain technology for future supply chains: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2019 , 24 , 62–84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Yang, R.; Wakefield, R.; Lyu, S.; Jayasuriya, S.; Han, F.; Yi, X.; Yang, X.; Amarasinghe, G.; Chen, S. Public and private blockchain in construction business process and information integration. Autom. Constr. 2020 , 118 , 103276. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Viriyasitavat, W.; Da Xu, L.; Bi, Z.; Pungpapong, V. Blockchain and internet of things for modern business process in digital economy—The state of the art. IEEE Trans. Comput. Soc. Syst. 2019 , 6 , 1420–1432. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Eggers, J.; Hein, A.; Weking, J.; Böhm, M.; Krcmar, H. Process automation on the blockchain: An exploratory case study on smart contracts. In Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kauai, HI, USA, 5 January 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
Gayialis, S.P.; Kechagias, E.P.; Papadopoulos, G.A.; Panayiotou, N.A. A Business Process Reference Model for the Development of a Wine Traceability System. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 11687. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Hameed, K.; Barika, M.; Garg, S.; Amin, M.B.; Kang, B. A taxonomy study on securing Blockchain-based Industrial applications: An overview, application perspectives, requirements, attacks, countermeasures, and open issues. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 2022 , 26 , 100312. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Viriyasitavat, W.; Da Xu, L.; Bi, Z.; Sapsomboon, A. Blockchain-based business process management (BPM) framework for service composition in industry 4.0. J. Intell. Manuf. 2020 , 31 , 1737–1748. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Bodkhe, U.; Tanwar, S.; Parekh, K.; Khanpara, P.; Tyagi, S.; Kumar, N.; Alazab, M. Blockchain for industry 4.0: A comprehensive review. IEEE Access 2020 , 8 , 79764–79800. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Upadhyay, N. Demystifying blockchain: A critical analysis of challenges, applications and opportunities. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020 , 54 , 102120. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Ahmad, A.; Saad, M.; Al Ghamdi, M.; Nyang, D.; Mohaisen, D. Blocktrail: A service for secure and transparent blockchain-driven audit trails. IEEE Syst. J. 2021 , 16 , 1367–1378. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Garg, P.; Gupta, B.; Chauhan, A.K.; Sivarajah, U.; Gupta, S.; Modgil, S. Measuring the perceived benefits of implementing blockchain technology in the banking sector. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021 , 163 , 120407. [ Google Scholar ]
Lyridis, D.V.; Andreadis, G.O.; Papaleonidas, C.; Tsiampa, V. A BPM-based framework for the impact assessment of blockchain to the midstream LNG supply chain. Marit. Bus. Rev. 2021 , 7 , 49–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Vertakova, Y.V.; Golovina, T.A.; Polyanin, A.V. Synergy of blockchain technologies and “big data” in business process management of economic systems. In Proceedings of the Institute of Scientific Communications Conference, Seattle, WA, USA, 20–22 June 2019; pp. 856–865. [ Google Scholar ]
Garcia-Garcia, J.A.; Sánchez-Gómez, N.; Lizcano, D.; Escalona, M.J.; Wojdynski, T. Using blockchain to improve collaborative business process management: Systematic literature review. IEEE Access 2020 , 8 , 142312–142336. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Di Ciccio, C.; Meroni, G.; Plebani, P. Business process monitoring on blockchains: Potentials and challenges. In Proceedings of the Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling: 21st International Conference, BPMDS 2020, 25th International Conference, EMMSAD 2020, Held at CAiSE 2020, Grenoble, France, 8–9 June 2020; pp. 36–51. [ Google Scholar ]
Viriyasitavat, W.; Da Xu, L.; Niyato, D.; Bi, Z.; Hoonsopon, D. Applications of blockchain in business processes: A comprehensive review. IEEE Access 2022 , 10 , 118900–118925. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Aagesen, G.; Krogstie, J. BPMN 2.0 for modeling business processes. In Handbook on Business Process Management 1: Introduction, Methods, and Information Systems ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 219–250. [ Google Scholar ]
Sukhera, S. Modeling Process and Information Systems: Leveraging Technology to Improve Service Operations. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Oshawa, ON, Canada, 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
De Filippi, P.; Mannan, M.; Reijers, W. Blockchain as a confidence machine: The problem of trust & challenges of governance. Technol. Soc. 2020 , 62 , 101284. [ Google Scholar ]
Yapa, C.; De Alwis, C.; Liyanage, M.; Ekanayake, J. Survey on blockchain for future smart grids: Technical aspects, applications, integration challenges and future research. Energy Rep. 2021 , 7 , 6530–6564. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Leng, J.; Ruan, G.; Jiang, P.; Xu, K.; Liu, Q.; Zhou, X.; Liu, C. Blockchain-empowered sustainable manufacturing and product life cycle management in industry 4.0: A survey. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020 , 132 , 110112. [ Google Scholar ]
Osterland, T.; Jarke, M.; Karagiannis, D.; Rose, T. Analyzing the Sustainability of Distributed Ledger Applications. Ph.D. Thesis, Universitätsbibliothek der RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany, 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
Khan, S.N.; Loukil, F.; Ghedira-Guegan, C.; Benkhelifa, E.; Bani-Hani, A. Blockchain smart contracts: Applications, challenges, and future trends. Peer-to-Peer Netw. Appl. 2021 , 14 , 2901–2925. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Nawari, N.O.; Ravindran, S. Blockchain technology and BIM process: Review and potential applications. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2019 , 24 , 209–238. [ Google Scholar ]
Porru, S.; Pinna, A.; Marchesi, M.; Tonelli, R. Blockchain-oriented software engineering: Challenges and new directions. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion (ICSE-C), Buenos Aires, Argentina, 20–28 May 2017; pp. 169–171. [ Google Scholar ]
Di Ciccio, C.; Meroni, G.; Plebani, P. On the adoption of blockchain for business process monitoring. Softw. Syst. Model. 2022 , 21 , 915–937. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Viriyasitavat, W.; Hoonsopon, D. Blockchain characteristics and consensus in modern business processes. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 2019 , 13 , 32–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Milani, F.; Garcia-Banuelos, L.; Filipova, S.; Markovska, M. Modelling blockchain-based business processes: A comparative analysis of BPMN vs. CMMN. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2021 , 27 , 638–657. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Demichev, A.; Kryukov, A.; Prikhod’ko, N. Business Process Engineering for Data Storing and Processing in a Collaborative Distributed Environment Based on Provenance Metadata, Smart Contracts and Blockchain Technology. J. Grid Comput. 2021 , 19 , 3. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Kopp, A.; Orlovskyi, D. Towards the Tokenization of Business Process Models using the Blockchain Technology and Smart Contracts. CMIS 2022 , 3137 , 274–287. [ Google Scholar ]
Lu, Q.; Binh Tran, A.; Weber, I.; O’Connor, H.; Rimba, P.; Xu, X.; Staples, M.; Zhu, L.; Jeffery, R. Integrated model-driven engineering of blockchain applications for business processes and asset management. Softw. Pract. Exp. 2021 , 51 , 1059–1079. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Osterwalder, A.; Pigneur, Y.; Tucci, C.L. Clarifying business models: Origins, present, and future of the concept. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2017 , 41 , 1–25. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Antonopoulos, A.M. Mastering Bitcoin: Unlocking Digital Cryptocurrencies ; O’Reilly Media, Inc.: Sebastopol, CA, USA, 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
Mougayar, W. The Business Blockchain: Promise, Practice, and Application of the Next Internet Technology ; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
Buterin, V. A Next-Generation Smart Contract and Decentralized Application Platform. 2014. Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-NEXT-GENERATION-SMART-CONTRACT-&-DECENTRALIZED-Buterin/0dbb8a54ca5066b82fa086bbf5db4c54b947719a (accessed on 5 December 2023).
Croman, K.; Decker, C.; Eyal, I.; Gencer, A.E.; Juels, A.; Kosba, A.E.; Miller, A.; Saxena, P.; Shi, E.; Sirer, E.G.; et al. On Scaling Decentralized Blockchains. 2016. Available online: https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/1159.pdf (accessed on 5 December 2023).
Tapscott, D.; Tapscott, A. Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology behind Bitcoin Is Changing Money, Business, and the World ; Penguin: London, UK, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
Kim, Y.; Lacity, M.C. Leveraging Blockchain technology to enhance supply chain management. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2018 , 54 , 3–11. [ Google Scholar ]
Chen, J.; Zhao, H.; Li, X.; Shi, Y. Blockchain technology and its applications in the food supply chain. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019 , 91 , 237–248. [ Google Scholar ]
Fan, J.; Yang, Z.; Lai, K.K. Blockchain technology for food traceability: A systematic review of the current status, applications, and future prospects. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020 , 106 , 215–232. [ Google Scholar ]
Sarmah, S.P.; Yen, D.C. Blockchain for supply chain traceability: A systematic review of the literature. J. Bus. Res. 2020 , 116 , 461–472. [ Google Scholar ]
Li, S.; Li, J.; Li, Y.; Li, H. Blockchain-based supply chain finance: A systematic review and future research directions. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 2722. [ Google Scholar ]
Li, T.; Cao, L. Blockchain-based supply chain finance: A case study. IEEE Access 2019 , 7 , 145540–145548. [ Google Scholar ]
Dorri, A.; Kanhere, S.S.; Jurdak, R.; Gauravaram, P. Blockchain for IoT security and privacy: The case study of a smart home. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC), Seoul, Republic of Korea, 14–17 May 2019; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 257–265. [ Google Scholar ]
Guo, Y.; Li, Y. Blockchain for supply chain management: A bibliometric analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2021 , 305 , 127031. [ Google Scholar ]
Srinivasan, A.; Srivastava, B.; Teo, C.P. Blockchain in supply chain management: An analysis of applications and potentials. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019 , 46 , 87–97. [ Google Scholar ]
Lee, J.; Lee, D.; Lee, I.; Kim, K. An analysis of Blockchain adoption in supply chain management: A literature review. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 406. [ Google Scholar ]
Zeng, Y.; Xu, X.; Xu, X. The impact of Blockchain on supply chain management: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019 , 49 , 36–43. [ Google Scholar ]
He, Q.; Zeng, D.; Li, X.; Chen, Y. Research on Blockchain-based intelligent supply chain management system. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2021 , 17 , 390–398. [ Google Scholar ]
Fanning, K.; Centers, D.P. Blockchain and its coming impact on supply chain management. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2018 , 114 , 264–280. [ Google Scholar ]
Xu, X.; Xu, X.; Liang, X. The application of Blockchain in e-supply chain management. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics (SOLI), Singapore, 31 July–2 August 2018; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 416–420. [ Google Scholar ]
Li, H.; Jiang, B. Blockchain technology in logistics and supply chain management: A review. Int. J. Transp. Sci. Technol. 2019 , 8 , 85–102. [ Google Scholar ]
Reijers, H.A. Business Process Management: The evolution of a discipline. Comput. Ind. 2021 , 126 , 103404. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Sarkis, J.; Cohen, M.; Dewick, P.; Schröder, P. Blockchain and supply chain: A review, a proposed framework, and future implications. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019 , 57 , 2117–2135. [ Google Scholar ]
Petrini, M.; Pozzebon, M. Blockchain technology for supply chain: A review. In Proceedings of the 2018 6th International Conference on Future Internet of Things and Cloud (FiCloud), Barcelona, Spain, 6–8 August 2018; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 140–147. [ Google Scholar ]
Li, J.; Liu, J. Blockchain technology and supply chain financing. In Proceedings of the 2020 3rd International Conference on Intelligent Transportation, Big Data & Smart City (ICITBS), Vientiane, Laos, 11–12 January 2020; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 1–6. [ Google Scholar ]
Tse, E. Blockchain and supply chain finance: The missing link. In Handbook of Blockchain, Digital Finance, and Inclusion ; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 375–387. [ Google Scholar ]
Wood, G. Ethereum: A Secure Decentralized Generalized Transaction Ledger. 2014. Available online: https://ethereum.org/en/whitepaper/ (accessed on 7 June 2024).
Paliwal, V.; Chandra, S.; Sharma, S. Blockchain Technology for Sustainable Supply Chain Management: A Systematic Literature Review and a Classification Framework. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 7638. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Vistro, D.M.; Farooq, M.S.; Rehman, A.U.; Sultan, H. Applications and Challenges of Blockchain with IoT in Food Supply Chain Management System: A Review. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Integrated Intelligent Computing Communication & Security (ICIIC 2021), Bangalore, India, 6–7 August 2021; Volume 4, pp. 596–605. [ Google Scholar ]
Hussain, M.; Javed, W.; Hakeem, O.; Yousafzai, A.; Younas, A.; Awan, M.J.; Nobanee, H.; Zain, A.M. Blockchain-Based IoT Devices in Supply Chain Management: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 3646. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Deepa, N.; Pham, Q.V.; Nguyen, D.C.; Bhattacharya, S.; Prabadevi, B.; Gadekallu, T.R.; Maddikunta, P.K.R.; Fang, F.; Pathirana, P.N. A survey on blockchain for big data: Approaches, opportunities, and future directions. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2022 , 209–226. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Kassen, M. Blockchain and e-government innovation: Automation of public information processes. Inf. Syst. 2022 , 103 , 101862. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Malik, S.; Kanhere, S.S.; Jurdak, R. ProductChain: Scalable blockchain framework to support provenance in supply chains. In Proceedings of the NCA 2018—2018 IEEE 17th International Symposium on Network Computing and Applications, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1–3 November 2018; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Mangla, S.K.; Kazancoglu, Y.; Ekinci, E.; Liu, M.; Özbiltekin, M.; Sezer, M.D. Using system dynamics to analyze the societal impacts of blockchain technology in milk supply chains refer. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2021 , 149 , 102289. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Manolache, M.A.; Tapus, N. Universal resource management and logistics using blockchain technology. In Proceedings of the Proceedings—2019 22nd International Conference on Control Systems and Computer Science, CSCS 2019, Bucharest, Romania, 28–30 May 2019; pp. 575–582. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Manupati, V.K.K.; Schoenherr, T.; Ramkumar, M.; Wagner, S.M.S.M.; Pabba, S.K.S.K. Inder Raj Singh, R.. A blockchain-based approach for a multi-echelon sustainable supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019 , 58 , 2222–2241. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Mao, D.; Wang, F.; Hao, Z.; Li, H. Credit evaluation system based on blockchain for multiple stakeholders in the food supply chain. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018 , 15 , 1627. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Marinello, F.; Atzori, M.; Lisi, L.; Boscaro, D.; Pezzuolo, A. Development of a traceability system for the animal product supply chain based on blockchain technology. In Proceedings of the Precision Livestock Farming 2017—Papers Presented at the 8th European Conference on Precision Livestock Farming, ECPLF 2017, Nantes, France, 12–14 September 2017; pp. 258–268. [ Google Scholar ]
Maroun, E.A.E.A.; Daniel, J. Opportunities for use of blockchain technology in supply chains: Australian manufacturer case study. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Bangkok, Thailand, 5–7 March 2019; pp. 1603–1613. [ Google Scholar ]
Martins, G.J.D.U.; Reis, J.Z.; Petroni, B.C.A.; Gonçalves, R.F.; Andrlic, B. Evaluating a Blockchain-Based Supply Chain Purchasing Process Through Simulation. In IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Mathivathanan, D.; Mathiyazhagan, K.; Rana, N.P.; Khorana, S.; Dwivedi, Y.K. Barriers to the adoption of block chain technology in business supply chains: A total interpretive structural modelling (TISM) approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2021 , 59 , 3338–3359. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Mattke, J.; Hund, A.; Maier, C.; Weitzel, T. How an enterprise blockchain application in the U.S. Pharmaceuticals supply chain is saving lives. MIS Q. Exec. 2019 , 18 , 245–261. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Meng, M.H.; Qian, Y. A Blockchain Aided Metric for Predictive Delivery Performance in Supply Chain Management. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics, SOLI, Singapore, 31 July–2 August 2018; pp. 285–290. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Merkaš, Z.; Perkov, D.; Bonin, V. The significance of blockchain technology in digital transformation of logistics and transportation. Int. J. E-Serv. Mob. Appl. 2020 , 12 , 1–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Mezquita, Y.; González-Briones, A.; Casado-Vara, R.; Chamoso, P.; Prieto, J.; Corchado, J.M. Blockchain-based architecture: A MAS proposal for efficient agri-food supply chains. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Min, H. Blockchain technology for enhancing supply chain resilience. Bus. Horiz. 2019 , 62 , 35–45. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Mirabelli, G.; Solina, V. Blockchain and agricultural supply chains traceability: Research trends and future challenges. Procedia Manuf. 2020 , 42 , 414–421. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Molina, J.C.; Delgado, D.T.; Tarazona, G. Using blockchain for traceability in the drug supply chain. In Communications in Computer and Information Science ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Mondal, S.; Wijewardena, K.P.; Karuppuswami, S.; Kriti, N.; Kumar, D.; Chahal, P. Blockchain inspired RFID-based information architecture for food supply chain. IEEE Internet Things J. 2019 , 6 , 5803–5813. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Mondragon, A.E.C.; Coronado, C.E.; Coronado, E.S. Investigating the Applicability of Distributed Ledger/Blockchain Technology in Manufacturing and Perishable Goods Supply Chains. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 6th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Applications, ICIEA, Tokyo, Japan, 12–15 April 2019; pp. 728–732. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Mondragon, A.E.C.; Mondragon, C.E.C.; Coronado, E.S. Feasibility of Internet of Things and Agnostic Blockchain Technology Solutions: A Case in the Fisheries Supply Chain. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 7th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Applications, ICIEA, Bangkok, Thailand, 16–21 April 2020; pp. 504–508. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Mondragon, A.E.C.; Mondragon, C.E.C.; Coronado, E.S. Exploring the applicability of blockchain technology to enhance manufacturing supply chains in the composite materials industry. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Applied System Invention, ICASI, Chiba, Japan, 13–17 April 2018; pp. 1300–1303. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Montecchi, M.; Plangger, K.; Etter, M. It’s real, trust me! Establishing supply chain provenance using blockchain. Bus. Horiz. 2019 , 62 , 283–293. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Morten Komdeur, E.F.; Ingenbleek, P.T.M. The potential of blockchain technology in the procurement of sustainable timber products. Int. Wood Prod. J. 2021 , 12 , 249–257. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Moudoud, H.; Cherkaoui, S.; Khoukhi, L. An IoT Blockchain Architecture Using Oracles and Smart Contracts: The Use-Case of a Food Supply Chain. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications, PIMRC, Istanbul, Turkey, 8–11 September 2019. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Mukherjee, A.A.; Singh, R.K.; Mishra, R.; Bag, S. Application of blockchain technology for sustainability development in agricultural supply chain: Justification framework. Oper. Manag. Res. 2021 , 15 , 46–61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Kaur, R.; Sandhu, R.S.; Gera, A.; Kaur, T.; Gera, P. Intelligent Voice Bots for Digital Banking. In Proceedings of the Smart Systems and IoT: Innovations in Computing, Jaipur, India, 18–20 January 2019; Volume 141, pp. 401–409. [ Google Scholar ]
Aithal, S.; Karan, K.P. Massive Growth of Banking Technology with the Aid of 5G Technology. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 2015 , 5 , 617–626. [ Google Scholar ]
Bunea, D.; Karakitsos, P.; Merriman, N.; Studener, W. Profit Distribution and Loss Coverage Rules for Central Banks ; ECB Occasional Paper 169; European Central Bank: Frankfurt, Germany, 2016; pp. 1–56. [ Google Scholar ]
Burda, D.; Teuteberg, F. The role of trust and risk perceptions in cloud archiving—Results from an empirical study. J. High Technol. Manag. Res. 2014 , 25 , 172–187. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Vial, G. Understanding Digital Transformation: A Review and A Research Agenda. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2019 , 28 , 118–144. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Chao, C.-M. Factors determining the behavioral intention to use mobile learning: An application and extension of the UTAUT model. Front. Psychol. 2019 , 10 , 1652. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Chaouali, W.; Yahia, I.B.; Souiden, N. The interplay of counter-conformity motivation, social influence, and trust in customers’ intention to adopt Internet banking services: The case of an emerging country. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016 , 28 , 209–218. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Cheng, R.J. UTAUT implementation of cryptocurrency-based Islamic financing instrument. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2020 , 10 , 873–884. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Creswell, J.W.; Creswell, J.D. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches ; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
Cucari, N.; Lagasio, V.; Lia, G.; Torrier, C. The impact of blockchain in banking processes: The Interbank Spunta case study. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2022 , 34 , 138–150. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Dwivedi, Y.K.; Ismagilova, E.; Sarker, P.; Jeyaraj, A.; Jadil, Y.; Hughes, L. A meta-analytic structural equation model for understanding social commerce adoption. Inf. Syst. Front. 2021 , 25 , 1421–1437. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Dwivedi, Y.K.; Rana, N.R.; Jeyaraj, A.; Clement, M.; Williams, M.F.D. Re-examining the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): Towards a revised theoretical model. Inf. Syst. Front. 2019 , 21 , 719–734. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Scott, F.W.; Wall, L.D.; White, L.J. Technological Change and Financial Innovation in Banking: Some Implications for Fintech. 2018. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3261732 (accessed on 3 March 2022).
Franch-Pardo, I.; Napoletano, B.M.; Rosete-Verges, F.; Billa, L. Spatial analysis and GIS in the study of COVID-19. A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2020 , 739 , 140033. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Franque, F.B.; Oliveira, T.; Tam, C. Continuance intention of mobile payment: TTF model with Trust in an African context. Inf. Syst. Front. 2022 , 25 , 775–793. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Junqueira, G.C.; Ferreira, J.B.; da Silva, J.F.; Ferreira, D.B. The effects of trust transference, mobile attributes and enjoyment on mobile trust. BAR-Braz. Adm. Rev. 2015 , 12 , 88–108. [ Google Scholar ]
Gupta, A.; Gupta, S. Blockchain technology: Application in Indian banking sector. Delhi Bus. Rev. 2018 , 19 , 75–84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Gupta, S.; Ghardallou, W.; Pandey, D.K.; Sahu, G.P. Artificial intelligence adoption in the insurance industry: Evidence using the technology–organization–environment framework. Res. Int. Bus. Financ. 2022 , 5 , 101757. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Haferkorn, M.; Diaz, J.M.Q. Seasonality and interconnectivity within cryptocurrencies-an analysis on the basis of bitcoin, litecoin and namecoin. Int. Workshop Enterp. Appl. Serv. Financ. Ind. 2014 , 217 , 106–120. [ Google Scholar ]
Hair, J.F.; Matthews, L.M., Jr.; Matthews, R.L.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use. Int. J. Multivar. Data Anal. 2017 , 1 , 107–123. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Heidari, H.; Mousakhani, M.; Alborzi, M.; Divandari, A.; Radfar, R. Explaining the Blockchain Acceptance Indices in Iran Financial Markets: A Fuzzy Delphi Study. J. Money Econ. 2019 , 14 , 335–365. [ Google Scholar ]
Hew, T.S.; Kadir, S.L.S.A. Predicting instructional effectiveness of cloud-based virtual learning environment. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2016 , 116 , 1557–1584. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Hmoud, B.I.; Várallyai, L. Artificial intelligence in human resources information systems: Investigating its trust and adoption determinants. Int. J. Eng. Manag. Sci. 2020 , 5 , 749–765. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Jena, R.K. Exploring Antecedents of Peoples’ Intentions to Use Smart Services in a Smart City Environment: An Extended UTAUT Model. J. Inf. Syst. 2022 , 36 , 133–149. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Jevsikova, T.; Gabrielė, S.; Stumbrienė, D.; Juškevičienė, A.; Dagienė, V. Acceptance of distance learning technologies by teachers: Determining factors and emergency state influence. Informatica 2021 , 32 , 517–542. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Karim, S.; Rabbani, M.R.; Bawazir, H. Applications of blockchain technology in the finance and banking industry beyond digital currencies. In Blockchain Technology and Computational Excellence for Society 5.0 ; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2022; pp. 216–238. [ Google Scholar ]
Kawasmi, Z.; Gyasi, E.A.; Dadd, D. Blockchain adoption model for the global banking industry. J. Int. Technol. Inf. Manag. 2020 , 28 , 112–154. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Khalil, M.; Khawaja, K.F.; Sarfraz, M. The adoption of blockchain technology in the financial sector during the era of fourth industrial revolution: A moderated mediated model. Qual. Quant. 2021 , 56 , 2435–2452. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Kopp, T.; Baumgartner, M.; Kinkel, S. How Linguistic Framing Affects Factory Workers’ Initial Trust in Collaborative Robots: The Interplay Between Anthropomorphism and Technological Replacement. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 2022 , 158 , 102730. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Kumari, A.; Devi, N.C. Determinants of user’s behavioural intention to use blockchain technology in the digital banking services. Int. J. Electron. Financ. 2022 , 11 , 159–174. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
MacDonald, T.J.; Allen, D.W.E.; Potts, J. Blockchains and the boundaries of self-organized economies: Predictions for the future of banking. In Banking beyond Banks and Money ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 279–296. [ Google Scholar ]
Manchon, J.-B.; Bueno, M.; Navarro, J. How the initial level of trust in automated driving impacts drivers’ behaviour and early trust construction. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2022 , 86 , 281–295. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Martins, C.; Oliveira, T.; Popovič, A. Understanding the Internet banking adoption: A unified theory of acceptance and use of technology and perceived risk application. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2014 , 34 , 1–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Masrek, M.N.; Mohamed, I.S.; Daud, N.M.; Omar, N. Technology trust and mobile banking satisfaction: A case of Malaysian consumers. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014 , 129 , 53–58. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Nazim, N.F.; Razis, N.M.; Hatta, M.F.M. Behavioural intention to adopt blockchain technology among bankers in islamic financial system: Perspectives in Malaysia. Rom. J. Inf. Technol. Autom. Control. 2021 , 31 , 11–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Oliveira, T.; Faria, M.; Thomas, M.A.; Popovič, A. Extending the understanding of mobile banking adoption: When UTAUT meets TTF and ITM. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2014 , 34 , 689–703. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Osmani, M.; El-Haddadeh, R.; Hindi, N.; Janssen, M.; Weerakkody, V. Blockchain for next generation services in banking and finance: Cost, benefit, risk and opportunity analysis. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2020 , 34 , 884–899. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Patel, R.; Migliavacca, M.; Oriani, M. Blockchain in banking and finance: A bibliometric review. Res. Int. Bus. Financ. 2022 , 62 , 101718. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Patki, A.; Sople, V. Indian banking sector: Blockchain implementation, challenges and way forward. J. Bank. Financ. Technol. 2020 , 4 , 65–73. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Raza, S.A.; Qazi, W.; Khan, K.A.; Salam, J. Social isolation and acceptance of the learning management system (LMS) in the time of COVID-19 pandemic: An expansion of the UTAUT model. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2021 , 59 , 183–208. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Oliveira, T.; Alhinho, M.; Rita, P.; Dhillon, G. Modelling and testing consumer trust dimensions in e-commerce. Computers in Human Behavior 2017 , 71 , 153–164. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Saputra, U.W.E.; Darma, G.S. The Intention to Use Blockchain in Indonesia Using Extended Approach Technology Aceptance Model (TAM). CommIT (Commun. Inf. Technol.) J. 2022 , 16 , 27–35. [ Google Scholar ]
Goudenege, L.; Molent, A.; Zanette, A. Machine learning for pricing American options in high-dimensional Markovian and non-Markovian models. Quant. Financ. 2020 , 20 , 573–591. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Alsubaie, S.M.; Mahmoud, K.H.; Bossman, A.; Asafo-Adjei, E. Vulnerability of sustainable Islamic stock returns to implied market volatilities: An asymmetric approach. Discret. Dyn. Nat. Soc. 2022 , 2022 , 3804871. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Zhu, X.; Niu, Z.; Zhang, H.; Huang, J.; Zuo, X. Can gold and bitcoin hedge against the COVID-19 related news sentiment risk? New evidence from a NARDL approach. Resour. Policy 2022 , 79 , 103098. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Basdekis, C.; Christopoulos, A.; Katsampoxakis, I.; Nastas, V. The impact of the Ukrainian war on stock and energy markets: A wavelet coherence analysis. Energies 2022 , 15 , 8174. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Angerer, M.; Hoffmann, C.H.; Neitzert, F.; Kraus, S. Objective and subjective risks of investing. Financ. Res. Lett. 2021 , 40 , 101737. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Charfeddine, L.; Benlagha, N.; Maouchi, Y. Investigating the dynamic relationship between cryptocurrencies and conventional assets: Implications for financial investors. Econ. Model. 2020 , 85 , 198–217. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Gandal, N.; Hamrick, J.T.; Moore, T.; Oberman, T. Price manipulation in the Bitcoin ecosystem. J. Monet. Econ. 2018 , 95 , 86–96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Abbasi, G.A.; Tiew, L.Y.; Tang, J.; Goh, Y.N.; Thurasamy, R. The adoption of cryptocurrency as a disruptive force: Deep learning-based dual stage structural equation modelling and artificial neural network analysis. PLoS ONE 2021 , 16 , e0247582. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Author(s), Countries	Article Title	Journal, Year (Citation)	Key Findings
Christidis and Devetsikiotis, USA [ ]	“Blockchains and Smart Contracts for the Internet of Things.”	IEEE/Access, 2016 (5322) *	Smart contract utilization advances BCA/FinTech loyalty, commitment, and faithfulness.
Zheng et al., China [ ]	“An Overview of Blockchain Technology: Architecture, Consensus, and Future Trends.”	IEEE/International Congress o.n Big Data, 2017 (5130) *	Corporate ESG activities facilitate BCA integrity.
Khan and Salah, Asia/Pakistan, and United Arab Emirates [ ]	“IoT security: Review, blockchain solutions, and open challenges.”	Elsevier/Future Generation Computer Systems, 2018 (2767) *	Credit corruption problems in BCA/FinTech are considered trust issues in digital transactions (banking industry, stock markets, government, etc.).
Luu et al., Asia/Singapore [ ]	“Making Smart Contracts Smarter.”	ACM/CCS ’16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2016 (2451) *	Smart contract utilization advances BCA/FinTech loyalty, commitment, and faithfulness.
Agbo et al., Canada [ ]	“Blockchain Technology in Healthcare: A Systematic Review.”	MDPI/Healthcare, 2019 (1013) *	Corporate DEI initiatives enhance BCA traceability.
Eyal and Sirer, USA [ ]	“Majority is not Enough: Bitcoin Mining is Vulnerable.”	Cornell University/Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8437, Springer, 2014 (2980) *	By adopting cryptocurrencies the BCA/FinTech become more efficient, scalable, and durable with anonymity, security, privacy, and transparency functionalities.
Zheng et al., China [ ]	Blockchain challenges and opportunities: a survey	Interscience Publishers/International Journal of Web and Grid Services, 2018 (4545) *	Corporate ESG activities facilitate BCA integrity.

Author(s), Countries	Article’s Title	Journal, Year	Key Findings
Khan and Salah, Asia/Pakistan, and United Arab Emirates [ ]	“IoT security: Review, blockchain solutions, and open challenges.”	Elsevier/Future Generation Computer Systems, 2018 (2767) *	Corporate ESG activities facilitate BCA integrity.
Luu et al., Asia/Singapore [ ]	“Making Smart Contracts Smarter.”	ACM/CCS ’16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2016 (2451) *	Smart contract utilization advances BCA/FinTech loyalty, commitment, and faithfulness.
Agbo et al., Canada [ ]	“Blockchain Technology in Healthcare: A Systematic Review.”	MDPI/Healthcare, 2019 (1013) *	Corporate ESG activities facilitate BCA integrity, and Corporate DEI initiatives enhance BCA traceability.
Alcarria et al., Europe/Spain [ ]	“A Blockchain-Based Authorization System for Trustworthy Resource Monitoring and Trading in Smart Communities.”	MDPI/Sensors, 2018 (186) *	Credit corruption problems in BCA/FinTech are considered trust issues in digital transactions (banking industry, stock markets, government, etc.).
Zheng et al., USA [ ]	“An Overview of Blockchain Technology: Architecture, Consensus, and Future Trends.”	IEEE/International Congress on Big Data, 2017 (5130) *	Corporate DEI initiatives enhance BCA traceability.
Azzi et al., Asia/Lebanon [ ]	“The power of a blockchain-based supply chain.”	Elsevier/Computers and Industrial Engineering, 2019 (595) *	Information sharing problems in BCA/FinTech are considered fidelity issues in markets, investments, and financial services.
Yli-Huumo et al., USA [ ]	“Where Is Current Research on Blockchain Technology?—A Systematic Review.”	PLoS ONE 2016 (2916) *	Smart contract utilization advances BCA/FinTech loyalty, commitment, and faithfulness.

Author(s), Countries	Article’s Title	Journal, Year	Key Findings
Guo and Liang, China [ ]	“Blockchain application and outlook in the banking industry.”	Springer/Financial Innovation, 2016 (1234) *	By adopting cryptocurrencies the BCA/FinTech become more efficient, scalable, and durable with anonymity, security, privacy, and transparency functionalities.
Khan and Salah, Asia/Pakistan, and United Arab Emirates [ ]	“IoT security: Review, blockchain solutions, and open challenges.”	Elsevier/Future Generation Computer Systems, 2018 (2767) *	By adopting cryptocurrencies the BCA/FinTech become more efficient, scalable, and durable with anonymity, security, privacy, and transparency functionalities.
Alcarria et al., Europe/Spain [ ]	“A Blockchain-Based Authorization System for Trustworthy Resource Monitoring and Trading in Smart Communities.”	MDPI/Sensors, 2018 (186) *	Credit corruption problems in BCA/FinTech are considered trust issues in digital transactions (banking industry, stock markets, government, etc.).
Renduchintala et al., USA, Asia/Qatar, and India [ ]	“A Survey of Blockchain Applications in the FinTech Sector.”	Elsevier/Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 2022 (102) *	Smart contract utilization advances BCA/FinTech loyalty, commitment, and faithfulness.
Yli-Huumo et al., USA [ ]	“Where Is Current Research on Blockchain Technology?—A Systematic Review.”	PLoS ONE 2016 (2916) *	Information sharing problems in BCA/FinTech are considered fidelity issues in markets, investments, and financial services.
Jena, Asia/India [ ]	“Examining the Factors Affecting the Adoption of Blockchain Technology in the Banking Sector: An Extended UTAUT Model.”	MDPI/International Journal of Financial Studies, 2022 (109) *	Smart contract utilization advances BCA/FinTech loyalty, commitment, and faithfulness.
Agbo et al., Canada [ ]	“Blockchain Technology in Healthcare: A Systematic Review.”	MDPI/Healthcare, 2019 (1013) *	Information sharing problems in BCA/FinTech are considered fidelity issues in markets, investments, and financial services.

Author(s), Countries	Article’s Title	Journal, Year	Key Findings
Yli-Huumo et al., USA [ ]	“Where Is Current Research on Blockchain Technology?—A Systematic Review.”	PLoS ONE 2016 (2916) *	Smart contract utilization advances BCA/FinTech loyalty, commitment, and faithfulness.
Zheng et al., China [ ]	“Blockchain challenges and opportunities: a survey.”	Interscience Publishers/International Journal of Web and Grid Services, 2018 (4545) *	Smart contract utilization advances BCA/FinTech loyalty, commitment, and faithfulness.
Chiu and Koeppl, Canada [ ]	“Blockchain-based settlement for asset trading.”	Bank of Canada/Working Paper, Ottawa, 2018 (299) *	Credit corruption problems in BCA/FinTech are considered trust issues in digital transactions (banking industry, stock markets, government, etc.).
Gervais, et al., Europe/Switzerland, and Germany [ ]	“On the Security and Performance of Proof of Work Blockchains.”	ACM/CCS ’16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2016 (1961) *	By adopting cryptocurrencies the BCA/FinTech become more efficient, scalable, and durable with anonymity, security, privacy, and transparency functionalities.
Zyskind et al., USA, and Asia/Israel [ ]	“Decentralizing Privacy: Using Blockchain to Protect Personal Data.”	IEEE Security and Privacy Workshops, 2015 (3066) *	Credit corruption problems in BCA/FinTech are considered trust issues in digital transactions (banking industry, stock markets, government, etc.).
Khan and Salah, Asia/Pakistan, and United Arab Emirates [ ]	“IoT security: Review, blockchain solutions, and open challenges.”	Elsevier/Future Generation Computer Systems, 2018 (2767) *	Information sharing problems in BCA/FinTech are considered fidelity issues in markets, investments, and financial services.
Luu et al., Asia/Singapore [ ]	“Making Smart Contracts Smarter.”	ACM/CCS ’16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2016 (2451) *	Smart contract utilization advances BCA/FinTech loyalty, commitment, and faithfulness.

SLR Search Keyword (Screening Phase)	Count
Corporate Management (CM)	95
Supply Chain (SC)	104
Banking Industry (BI)	77
Stock Markets (SM)	42
Blockchain Technology Adoption (BCA)	318

BCA Functionalities (Financial Variables)	BCA/FinTech Sectors (Application Domain Areas)
BCA Functionalities (Financial Variables)	Corporate Management	Supply Chain	Banking Industry	Stock Markets
Faithfulness	√	√		√
Fidelity		√		√
Transparency			√
Trust	√			√
(Efficient, scalable, and durable) Performance			√
Integrity	√
Traceability–Accountability	√	√
Loyalty	√	√
Commitment	√	√		√
Privacy			√
Anonymity			√
Security			√

Implications, Theoretical Contributions, Questions, Potentiality, and Outlook	Issues, Risks, Limitations, and Opportunities	Financial Variables Operated as BCA Functionalities
Capital-intensive investment deters most companies from adopting BCT	High implementation cost (e.g., memory cost)	Faithfulness
Decentralization	Transfer and storage of highly sensitive data	Fidelity
Scalability	Enhance sustainability efforts by improving tracking and verifying emissions	Transparency
Track carbon balances and other environmental metric	Skill gaps	Trust
Auditability	Security risks	Performance
Holding companies accountable for their sustainability claims	Performance-related limitations	Integrity
How to protect data subjects against data harm (privacy breach, exploitation, disempowerment)	Integration-related issues with another company’s units	Traceability–Accountability
Data privacy		Loyalty
Trust among users		Commitment
Governance and internal control		Privacy
Direct peer-to-peer transactions via cryptocurrencies eliminate middlemen and reduce transaction time		Anonymity
Harmonizing the innovative BCT spirit with the pragmatic needs of financial governance. Nevertheless, increased regulations could suppress innovation, leading to less dynamic BCA.		Security

The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

Basdekidou, V.; Papapanagos, H. Blockchain Technology Adoption for Disrupting FinTech Functionalities: A Systematic Literature Review for Corporate Management, Supply Chain, Banking Industry, and Stock Markets. Digital 2024 , 4 , 762-803. https://doi.org/10.3390/digital4030039

Basdekidou V, Papapanagos H. Blockchain Technology Adoption for Disrupting FinTech Functionalities: A Systematic Literature Review for Corporate Management, Supply Chain, Banking Industry, and Stock Markets. Digital . 2024; 4(3):762-803. https://doi.org/10.3390/digital4030039

Basdekidou, Vasiliki, and Harry Papapanagos. 2024. "Blockchain Technology Adoption for Disrupting FinTech Functionalities: A Systematic Literature Review for Corporate Management, Supply Chain, Banking Industry, and Stock Markets" Digital 4, no. 3: 762-803. https://doi.org/10.3390/digital4030039

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings
Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.

Cover of Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach

Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet].

Chapter 9 methods for literature reviews.

Guy Paré and Spyros Kitsiou .

9.1. Introduction

Literature reviews play a critical role in scholarship because science remains, first and foremost, a cumulative endeavour ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). As in any academic discipline, rigorous knowledge syntheses are becoming indispensable in keeping up with an exponentially growing eHealth literature, assisting practitioners, academics, and graduate students in finding, evaluating, and synthesizing the contents of many empirical and conceptual papers. Among other methods, literature reviews are essential for: (a) identifying what has been written on a subject or topic; (b) determining the extent to which a specific research area reveals any interpretable trends or patterns; (c) aggregating empirical findings related to a narrow research question to support evidence-based practice; (d) generating new frameworks and theories; and (e) identifying topics or questions requiring more investigation ( Paré, Trudel, Jaana, & Kitsiou, 2015 ).

Literature reviews can take two major forms. The most prevalent one is the “literature review” or “background” section within a journal paper or a chapter in a graduate thesis. This section synthesizes the extant literature and usually identifies the gaps in knowledge that the empirical study addresses ( Sylvester, Tate, & Johnstone, 2013 ). It may also provide a theoretical foundation for the proposed study, substantiate the presence of the research problem, justify the research as one that contributes something new to the cumulated knowledge, or validate the methods and approaches for the proposed study ( Hart, 1998 ; Levy & Ellis, 2006 ).

The second form of literature review, which is the focus of this chapter, constitutes an original and valuable work of research in and of itself ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Rather than providing a base for a researcher’s own work, it creates a solid starting point for all members of the community interested in a particular area or topic ( Mulrow, 1987 ). The so-called “review article” is a journal-length paper which has an overarching purpose to synthesize the literature in a field, without collecting or analyzing any primary data ( Green, Johnson, & Adams, 2006 ).

When appropriately conducted, review articles represent powerful information sources for practitioners looking for state-of-the art evidence to guide their decision-making and work practices ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, high-quality reviews become frequently cited pieces of work which researchers seek out as a first clear outline of the literature when undertaking empirical studies ( Cooper, 1988 ; Rowe, 2014 ). Scholars who track and gauge the impact of articles have found that review papers are cited and downloaded more often than any other type of published article ( Cronin, Ryan, & Coughlan, 2008 ; Montori, Wilczynski, Morgan, Haynes, & Hedges, 2003 ; Patsopoulos, Analatos, & Ioannidis, 2005 ). The reason for their popularity may be the fact that reading the review enables one to have an overview, if not a detailed knowledge of the area in question, as well as references to the most useful primary sources ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Although they are not easy to conduct, the commitment to complete a review article provides a tremendous service to one’s academic community ( Paré et al., 2015 ; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Most, if not all, peer-reviewed journals in the fields of medical informatics publish review articles of some type.

The main objectives of this chapter are fourfold: (a) to provide an overview of the major steps and activities involved in conducting a stand-alone literature review; (b) to describe and contrast the different types of review articles that can contribute to the eHealth knowledge base; (c) to illustrate each review type with one or two examples from the eHealth literature; and (d) to provide a series of recommendations for prospective authors of review articles in this domain.

9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps

As explained in Templier and Paré (2015) , there are six generic steps involved in conducting a review article:

formulating the research question(s) and objective(s),
searching the extant literature,
screening for inclusion,
assessing the quality of primary studies,
extracting data, and
analyzing data.

Although these steps are presented here in sequential order, one must keep in mind that the review process can be iterative and that many activities can be initiated during the planning stage and later refined during subsequent phases ( Finfgeld-Connett & Johnson, 2013 ; Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ).

Formulating the research question(s) and objective(s): As a first step, members of the review team must appropriately justify the need for the review itself ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ), identify the review’s main objective(s) ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ), and define the concepts or variables at the heart of their synthesis ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ; Webster & Watson, 2002 ). Importantly, they also need to articulate the research question(s) they propose to investigate ( Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ). In this regard, we concur with Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey (2011) that clearly articulated research questions are key ingredients that guide the entire review methodology; they underscore the type of information that is needed, inform the search for and selection of relevant literature, and guide or orient the subsequent analysis. Searching the extant literature: The next step consists of searching the literature and making decisions about the suitability of material to be considered in the review ( Cooper, 1988 ). There exist three main coverage strategies. First, exhaustive coverage means an effort is made to be as comprehensive as possible in order to ensure that all relevant studies, published and unpublished, are included in the review and, thus, conclusions are based on this all-inclusive knowledge base. The second type of coverage consists of presenting materials that are representative of most other works in a given field or area. Often authors who adopt this strategy will search for relevant articles in a small number of top-tier journals in a field ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In the third strategy, the review team concentrates on prior works that have been central or pivotal to a particular topic. This may include empirical studies or conceptual papers that initiated a line of investigation, changed how problems or questions were framed, introduced new methods or concepts, or engendered important debate ( Cooper, 1988 ). Screening for inclusion: The following step consists of evaluating the applicability of the material identified in the preceding step ( Levy & Ellis, 2006 ; vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). Once a group of potential studies has been identified, members of the review team must screen them to determine their relevance ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). A set of predetermined rules provides a basis for including or excluding certain studies. This exercise requires a significant investment on the part of researchers, who must ensure enhanced objectivity and avoid biases or mistakes. As discussed later in this chapter, for certain types of reviews there must be at least two independent reviewers involved in the screening process and a procedure to resolve disagreements must also be in place ( Liberati et al., 2009 ; Shea et al., 2009 ). Assessing the quality of primary studies: In addition to screening material for inclusion, members of the review team may need to assess the scientific quality of the selected studies, that is, appraise the rigour of the research design and methods. Such formal assessment, which is usually conducted independently by at least two coders, helps members of the review team refine which studies to include in the final sample, determine whether or not the differences in quality may affect their conclusions, or guide how they analyze the data and interpret the findings ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Ascribing quality scores to each primary study or considering through domain-based evaluations which study components have or have not been designed and executed appropriately makes it possible to reflect on the extent to which the selected study addresses possible biases and maximizes validity ( Shea et al., 2009 ). Extracting data: The following step involves gathering or extracting applicable information from each primary study included in the sample and deciding what is relevant to the problem of interest ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Indeed, the type of data that should be recorded mainly depends on the initial research questions ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ). However, important information may also be gathered about how, when, where and by whom the primary study was conducted, the research design and methods, or qualitative/quantitative results ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Analyzing and synthesizing data : As a final step, members of the review team must collate, summarize, aggregate, organize, and compare the evidence extracted from the included studies. The extracted data must be presented in a meaningful way that suggests a new contribution to the extant literature ( Jesson et al., 2011 ). Webster and Watson (2002) warn researchers that literature reviews should be much more than lists of papers and should provide a coherent lens to make sense of extant knowledge on a given topic. There exist several methods and techniques for synthesizing quantitative (e.g., frequency analysis, meta-analysis) and qualitative (e.g., grounded theory, narrative analysis, meta-ethnography) evidence ( Dixon-Woods, Agarwal, Jones, Young, & Sutton, 2005 ; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).

9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations

EHealth researchers have at their disposal a number of approaches and methods for making sense out of existing literature, all with the purpose of casting current research findings into historical contexts or explaining contradictions that might exist among a set of primary research studies conducted on a particular topic. Our classification scheme is largely inspired from Paré and colleagues’ (2015) typology. Below we present and illustrate those review types that we feel are central to the growth and development of the eHealth domain.

9.3.1. Narrative Reviews

The narrative review is the “traditional” way of reviewing the extant literature and is skewed towards a qualitative interpretation of prior knowledge ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). Put simply, a narrative review attempts to summarize or synthesize what has been written on a particular topic but does not seek generalization or cumulative knowledge from what is reviewed ( Davies, 2000 ; Green et al., 2006 ). Instead, the review team often undertakes the task of accumulating and synthesizing the literature to demonstrate the value of a particular point of view ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ). As such, reviewers may selectively ignore or limit the attention paid to certain studies in order to make a point. In this rather unsystematic approach, the selection of information from primary articles is subjective, lacks explicit criteria for inclusion and can lead to biased interpretations or inferences ( Green et al., 2006 ). There are several narrative reviews in the particular eHealth domain, as in all fields, which follow such an unstructured approach ( Silva et al., 2015 ; Paul et al., 2015 ).

Despite these criticisms, this type of review can be very useful in gathering together a volume of literature in a specific subject area and synthesizing it. As mentioned above, its primary purpose is to provide the reader with a comprehensive background for understanding current knowledge and highlighting the significance of new research ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Faculty like to use narrative reviews in the classroom because they are often more up to date than textbooks, provide a single source for students to reference, and expose students to peer-reviewed literature ( Green et al., 2006 ). For researchers, narrative reviews can inspire research ideas by identifying gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge, thus helping researchers to determine research questions or formulate hypotheses. Importantly, narrative reviews can also be used as educational articles to bring practitioners up to date with certain topics of issues ( Green et al., 2006 ).

Recently, there have been several efforts to introduce more rigour in narrative reviews that will elucidate common pitfalls and bring changes into their publication standards. Information systems researchers, among others, have contributed to advancing knowledge on how to structure a “traditional” review. For instance, Levy and Ellis (2006) proposed a generic framework for conducting such reviews. Their model follows the systematic data processing approach comprised of three steps, namely: (a) literature search and screening; (b) data extraction and analysis; and (c) writing the literature review. They provide detailed and very helpful instructions on how to conduct each step of the review process. As another methodological contribution, vom Brocke et al. (2009) offered a series of guidelines for conducting literature reviews, with a particular focus on how to search and extract the relevant body of knowledge. Last, Bandara, Miskon, and Fielt (2011) proposed a structured, predefined and tool-supported method to identify primary studies within a feasible scope, extract relevant content from identified articles, synthesize and analyze the findings, and effectively write and present the results of the literature review. We highly recommend that prospective authors of narrative reviews consult these useful sources before embarking on their work.

Darlow and Wen (2015) provide a good example of a highly structured narrative review in the eHealth field. These authors synthesized published articles that describe the development process of mobile health (m-health) interventions for patients’ cancer care self-management. As in most narrative reviews, the scope of the research questions being investigated is broad: (a) how development of these systems are carried out; (b) which methods are used to investigate these systems; and (c) what conclusions can be drawn as a result of the development of these systems. To provide clear answers to these questions, a literature search was conducted on six electronic databases and Google Scholar . The search was performed using several terms and free text words, combining them in an appropriate manner. Four inclusion and three exclusion criteria were utilized during the screening process. Both authors independently reviewed each of the identified articles to determine eligibility and extract study information. A flow diagram shows the number of studies identified, screened, and included or excluded at each stage of study selection. In terms of contributions, this review provides a series of practical recommendations for m-health intervention development.

9.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

The primary goal of a descriptive review is to determine the extent to which a body of knowledge in a particular research topic reveals any interpretable pattern or trend with respect to pre-existing propositions, theories, methodologies or findings ( King & He, 2005 ; Paré et al., 2015 ). In contrast with narrative reviews, descriptive reviews follow a systematic and transparent procedure, including searching, screening and classifying studies ( Petersen, Vakkalanka, & Kuzniarz, 2015 ). Indeed, structured search methods are used to form a representative sample of a larger group of published works ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, authors of descriptive reviews extract from each study certain characteristics of interest, such as publication year, research methods, data collection techniques, and direction or strength of research outcomes (e.g., positive, negative, or non-significant) in the form of frequency analysis to produce quantitative results ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). In essence, each study included in a descriptive review is treated as the unit of analysis and the published literature as a whole provides a database from which the authors attempt to identify any interpretable trends or draw overall conclusions about the merits of existing conceptualizations, propositions, methods or findings ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In doing so, a descriptive review may claim that its findings represent the state of the art in a particular domain ( King & He, 2005 ).

In the fields of health sciences and medical informatics, reviews that focus on examining the range, nature and evolution of a topic area are described by Anderson, Allen, Peckham, and Goodwin (2008) as mapping reviews . Like descriptive reviews, the research questions are generic and usually relate to publication patterns and trends. There is no preconceived plan to systematically review all of the literature although this can be done. Instead, researchers often present studies that are representative of most works published in a particular area and they consider a specific time frame to be mapped.

An example of this approach in the eHealth domain is offered by DeShazo, Lavallie, and Wolf (2009). The purpose of this descriptive or mapping review was to characterize publication trends in the medical informatics literature over a 20-year period (1987 to 2006). To achieve this ambitious objective, the authors performed a bibliometric analysis of medical informatics citations indexed in medline using publication trends, journal frequencies, impact factors, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term frequencies, and characteristics of citations. Findings revealed that there were over 77,000 medical informatics articles published during the covered period in numerous journals and that the average annual growth rate was 12%. The MeSH term analysis also suggested a strong interdisciplinary trend. Finally, average impact scores increased over time with two notable growth periods. Overall, patterns in research outputs that seem to characterize the historic trends and current components of the field of medical informatics suggest it may be a maturing discipline (DeShazo et al., 2009).

9.3.3. Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews attempt to provide an initial indication of the potential size and nature of the extant literature on an emergent topic (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Daudt, van Mossel, & Scott, 2013 ; Levac, Colquhoun, & O’Brien, 2010). A scoping review may be conducted to examine the extent, range and nature of research activities in a particular area, determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review (discussed next), or identify research gaps in the extant literature ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In line with their main objective, scoping reviews usually conclude with the presentation of a detailed research agenda for future works along with potential implications for both practice and research.

Unlike narrative and descriptive reviews, the whole point of scoping the field is to be as comprehensive as possible, including grey literature (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). Inclusion and exclusion criteria must be established to help researchers eliminate studies that are not aligned with the research questions. It is also recommended that at least two independent coders review abstracts yielded from the search strategy and then the full articles for study selection ( Daudt et al., 2013 ). The synthesized evidence from content or thematic analysis is relatively easy to present in tabular form (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).

One of the most highly cited scoping reviews in the eHealth domain was published by Archer, Fevrier-Thomas, Lokker, McKibbon, and Straus (2011) . These authors reviewed the existing literature on personal health record ( phr ) systems including design, functionality, implementation, applications, outcomes, and benefits. Seven databases were searched from 1985 to March 2010. Several search terms relating to phr s were used during this process. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts to determine inclusion status. A second screen of full-text articles, again by two independent members of the research team, ensured that the studies described phr s. All in all, 130 articles met the criteria and their data were extracted manually into a database. The authors concluded that although there is a large amount of survey, observational, cohort/panel, and anecdotal evidence of phr benefits and satisfaction for patients, more research is needed to evaluate the results of phr implementations. Their in-depth analysis of the literature signalled that there is little solid evidence from randomized controlled trials or other studies through the use of phr s. Hence, they suggested that more research is needed that addresses the current lack of understanding of optimal functionality and usability of these systems, and how they can play a beneficial role in supporting patient self-management ( Archer et al., 2011 ).

9.3.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

Healthcare providers, practitioners, and policy-makers are nowadays overwhelmed with large volumes of information, including research-based evidence from numerous clinical trials and evaluation studies, assessing the effectiveness of health information technologies and interventions ( Ammenwerth & de Keizer, 2004 ; Deshazo et al., 2009 ). It is unrealistic to expect that all these disparate actors will have the time, skills, and necessary resources to identify the available evidence in the area of their expertise and consider it when making decisions. Systematic reviews that involve the rigorous application of scientific strategies aimed at limiting subjectivity and bias (i.e., systematic and random errors) can respond to this challenge.

Systematic reviews attempt to aggregate, appraise, and synthesize in a single source all empirical evidence that meet a set of previously specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a clearly formulated and often narrow research question on a particular topic of interest to support evidence-based practice ( Liberati et al., 2009 ). They adhere closely to explicit scientific principles ( Liberati et al., 2009 ) and rigorous methodological guidelines (Higgins & Green, 2008) aimed at reducing random and systematic errors that can lead to deviations from the truth in results or inferences. The use of explicit methods allows systematic reviews to aggregate a large body of research evidence, assess whether effects or relationships are in the same direction and of the same general magnitude, explain possible inconsistencies between study results, and determine the strength of the overall evidence for every outcome of interest based on the quality of included studies and the general consistency among them ( Cook, Mulrow, & Haynes, 1997 ). The main procedures of a systematic review involve:

Formulating a review question and developing a search strategy based on explicit inclusion criteria for the identification of eligible studies (usually described in the context of a detailed review protocol).
Searching for eligible studies using multiple databases and information sources, including grey literature sources, without any language restrictions.
Selecting studies, extracting data, and assessing risk of bias in a duplicate manner using two independent reviewers to avoid random or systematic errors in the process.
Analyzing data using quantitative or qualitative methods.
Presenting results in summary of findings tables.
Interpreting results and drawing conclusions.

Many systematic reviews, but not all, use statistical methods to combine the results of independent studies into a single quantitative estimate or summary effect size. Known as meta-analyses , these reviews use specific data extraction and statistical techniques (e.g., network, frequentist, or Bayesian meta-analyses) to calculate from each study by outcome of interest an effect size along with a confidence interval that reflects the degree of uncertainty behind the point estimate of effect ( Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009 ; Deeks, Higgins, & Altman, 2008 ). Subsequently, they use fixed or random-effects analysis models to combine the results of the included studies, assess statistical heterogeneity, and calculate a weighted average of the effect estimates from the different studies, taking into account their sample sizes. The summary effect size is a value that reflects the average magnitude of the intervention effect for a particular outcome of interest or, more generally, the strength of a relationship between two variables across all studies included in the systematic review. By statistically combining data from multiple studies, meta-analyses can create more precise and reliable estimates of intervention effects than those derived from individual studies alone, when these are examined independently as discrete sources of information.

The review by Gurol-Urganci, de Jongh, Vodopivec-Jamsek, Atun, and Car (2013) on the effects of mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments is an illustrative example of a high-quality systematic review with meta-analysis. Missed appointments are a major cause of inefficiency in healthcare delivery with substantial monetary costs to health systems. These authors sought to assess whether mobile phone-based appointment reminders delivered through Short Message Service ( sms ) or Multimedia Messaging Service ( mms ) are effective in improving rates of patient attendance and reducing overall costs. To this end, they conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases using highly sensitive search strategies without language or publication-type restrictions to identify all rct s that are eligible for inclusion. In order to minimize the risk of omitting eligible studies not captured by the original search, they supplemented all electronic searches with manual screening of trial registers and references contained in the included studies. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were performed independently by two coders using standardized methods to ensure consistency and to eliminate potential errors. Findings from eight rct s involving 6,615 participants were pooled into meta-analyses to calculate the magnitude of effects that mobile text message reminders have on the rate of attendance at healthcare appointments compared to no reminders and phone call reminders.

Meta-analyses are regarded as powerful tools for deriving meaningful conclusions. However, there are situations in which it is neither reasonable nor appropriate to pool studies together using meta-analytic methods simply because there is extensive clinical heterogeneity between the included studies or variation in measurement tools, comparisons, or outcomes of interest. In these cases, systematic reviews can use qualitative synthesis methods such as vote counting, content analysis, classification schemes and tabulations, as an alternative approach to narratively synthesize the results of the independent studies included in the review. This form of review is known as qualitative systematic review.

A rigorous example of one such review in the eHealth domain is presented by Mickan, Atherton, Roberts, Heneghan, and Tilson (2014) on the use of handheld computers by healthcare professionals and their impact on access to information and clinical decision-making. In line with the methodological guidelines for systematic reviews, these authors: (a) developed and registered with prospero ( www.crd.york.ac.uk/ prospero / ) an a priori review protocol; (b) conducted comprehensive searches for eligible studies using multiple databases and other supplementary strategies (e.g., forward searches); and (c) subsequently carried out study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments in a duplicate manner to eliminate potential errors in the review process. Heterogeneity between the included studies in terms of reported outcomes and measures precluded the use of meta-analytic methods. To this end, the authors resorted to using narrative analysis and synthesis to describe the effectiveness of handheld computers on accessing information for clinical knowledge, adherence to safety and clinical quality guidelines, and diagnostic decision-making.

In recent years, the number of systematic reviews in the field of health informatics has increased considerably. Systematic reviews with discordant findings can cause great confusion and make it difficult for decision-makers to interpret the review-level evidence ( Moher, 2013 ). Therefore, there is a growing need for appraisal and synthesis of prior systematic reviews to ensure that decision-making is constantly informed by the best available accumulated evidence. Umbrella reviews , also known as overviews of systematic reviews, are tertiary types of evidence synthesis that aim to accomplish this; that is, they aim to compare and contrast findings from multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Umbrella reviews generally adhere to the same principles and rigorous methodological guidelines used in systematic reviews. However, the unit of analysis in umbrella reviews is the systematic review rather than the primary study ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Unlike systematic reviews that have a narrow focus of inquiry, umbrella reviews focus on broader research topics for which there are several potential interventions ( Smith, Devane, Begley, & Clarke, 2011 ). A recent umbrella review on the effects of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with heart failure critically appraised, compared, and synthesized evidence from 15 systematic reviews to investigate which types of home telemonitoring technologies and forms of interventions are more effective in reducing mortality and hospital admissions ( Kitsiou, Paré, & Jaana, 2015 ).

9.3.5. Realist Reviews

Realist reviews are theory-driven interpretative reviews developed to inform, enhance, or supplement conventional systematic reviews by making sense of heterogeneous evidence about complex interventions applied in diverse contexts in a way that informs policy decision-making ( Greenhalgh, Wong, Westhorp, & Pawson, 2011 ). They originated from criticisms of positivist systematic reviews which centre on their “simplistic” underlying assumptions ( Oates, 2011 ). As explained above, systematic reviews seek to identify causation. Such logic is appropriate for fields like medicine and education where findings of randomized controlled trials can be aggregated to see whether a new treatment or intervention does improve outcomes. However, many argue that it is not possible to establish such direct causal links between interventions and outcomes in fields such as social policy, management, and information systems where for any intervention there is unlikely to be a regular or consistent outcome ( Oates, 2011 ; Pawson, 2006 ; Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008 ).

To circumvent these limitations, Pawson, Greenhalgh, Harvey, and Walshe (2005) have proposed a new approach for synthesizing knowledge that seeks to unpack the mechanism of how “complex interventions” work in particular contexts. The basic research question — what works? — which is usually associated with systematic reviews changes to: what is it about this intervention that works, for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects and why? Realist reviews have no particular preference for either quantitative or qualitative evidence. As a theory-building approach, a realist review usually starts by articulating likely underlying mechanisms and then scrutinizes available evidence to find out whether and where these mechanisms are applicable ( Shepperd et al., 2009 ). Primary studies found in the extant literature are viewed as case studies which can test and modify the initial theories ( Rousseau et al., 2008 ).

The main objective pursued in the realist review conducted by Otte-Trojel, de Bont, Rundall, and van de Klundert (2014) was to examine how patient portals contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The specific goals were to investigate how outcomes are produced and, most importantly, how variations in outcomes can be explained. The research team started with an exploratory review of background documents and research studies to identify ways in which patient portals may contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The authors identified six main ways which represent “educated guesses” to be tested against the data in the evaluation studies. These studies were identified through a formal and systematic search in four databases between 2003 and 2013. Two members of the research team selected the articles using a pre-established list of inclusion and exclusion criteria and following a two-step procedure. The authors then extracted data from the selected articles and created several tables, one for each outcome category. They organized information to bring forward those mechanisms where patient portals contribute to outcomes and the variation in outcomes across different contexts.

9.3.6. Critical Reviews

Lastly, critical reviews aim to provide a critical evaluation and interpretive analysis of existing literature on a particular topic of interest to reveal strengths, weaknesses, contradictions, controversies, inconsistencies, and/or other important issues with respect to theories, hypotheses, research methods or results ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ; Kirkevold, 1997 ). Unlike other review types, critical reviews attempt to take a reflective account of the research that has been done in a particular area of interest, and assess its credibility by using appraisal instruments or critical interpretive methods. In this way, critical reviews attempt to constructively inform other scholars about the weaknesses of prior research and strengthen knowledge development by giving focus and direction to studies for further improvement ( Kirkevold, 1997 ).

Kitsiou, Paré, and Jaana (2013) provide an example of a critical review that assessed the methodological quality of prior systematic reviews of home telemonitoring studies for chronic patients. The authors conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases to identify eligible reviews and subsequently used a validated instrument to conduct an in-depth quality appraisal. Results indicate that the majority of systematic reviews in this particular area suffer from important methodological flaws and biases that impair their internal validity and limit their usefulness for clinical and decision-making purposes. To this end, they provide a number of recommendations to strengthen knowledge development towards improving the design and execution of future reviews on home telemonitoring.

9.4. Summary

Table 9.1 outlines the main types of literature reviews that were described in the previous sub-sections and summarizes the main characteristics that distinguish one review type from another. It also includes key references to methodological guidelines and useful sources that can be used by eHealth scholars and researchers for planning and developing reviews.

Typology of Literature Reviews (adapted from Paré et al., 2015).

As shown in Table 9.1 , each review type addresses different kinds of research questions or objectives, which subsequently define and dictate the methods and approaches that need to be used to achieve the overarching goal(s) of the review. For example, in the case of narrative reviews, there is greater flexibility in searching and synthesizing articles ( Green et al., 2006 ). Researchers are often relatively free to use a diversity of approaches to search, identify, and select relevant scientific articles, describe their operational characteristics, present how the individual studies fit together, and formulate conclusions. On the other hand, systematic reviews are characterized by their high level of systematicity, rigour, and use of explicit methods, based on an “a priori” review plan that aims to minimize bias in the analysis and synthesis process (Higgins & Green, 2008). Some reviews are exploratory in nature (e.g., scoping/mapping reviews), whereas others may be conducted to discover patterns (e.g., descriptive reviews) or involve a synthesis approach that may include the critical analysis of prior research ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Hence, in order to select the most appropriate type of review, it is critical to know before embarking on a review project, why the research synthesis is conducted and what type of methods are best aligned with the pursued goals.

9.5. Concluding Remarks

In light of the increased use of evidence-based practice and research generating stronger evidence ( Grady et al., 2011 ; Lyden et al., 2013 ), review articles have become essential tools for summarizing, synthesizing, integrating or critically appraising prior knowledge in the eHealth field. As mentioned earlier, when rigorously conducted review articles represent powerful information sources for eHealth scholars and practitioners looking for state-of-the-art evidence. The typology of literature reviews we used herein will allow eHealth researchers, graduate students and practitioners to gain a better understanding of the similarities and differences between review types.

We must stress that this classification scheme does not privilege any specific type of review as being of higher quality than another ( Paré et al., 2015 ). As explained above, each type of review has its own strengths and limitations. Having said that, we realize that the methodological rigour of any review — be it qualitative, quantitative or mixed — is a critical aspect that should be considered seriously by prospective authors. In the present context, the notion of rigour refers to the reliability and validity of the review process described in section 9.2. For one thing, reliability is related to the reproducibility of the review process and steps, which is facilitated by a comprehensive documentation of the literature search process, extraction, coding and analysis performed in the review. Whether the search is comprehensive or not, whether it involves a methodical approach for data extraction and synthesis or not, it is important that the review documents in an explicit and transparent manner the steps and approach that were used in the process of its development. Next, validity characterizes the degree to which the review process was conducted appropriately. It goes beyond documentation and reflects decisions related to the selection of the sources, the search terms used, the period of time covered, the articles selected in the search, and the application of backward and forward searches ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). In short, the rigour of any review article is reflected by the explicitness of its methods (i.e., transparency) and the soundness of the approach used. We refer those interested in the concepts of rigour and quality to the work of Templier and Paré (2015) which offers a detailed set of methodological guidelines for conducting and evaluating various types of review articles.

To conclude, our main objective in this chapter was to demystify the various types of literature reviews that are central to the continuous development of the eHealth field. It is our hope that our descriptive account will serve as a valuable source for those conducting, evaluating or using reviews in this important and growing domain.

Ammenwerth E., de Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health care. Trends in evaluation research, 1982-2002. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2004; 44 (1):44–56. [ PubMed : 15778794 ]
Anderson S., Allen P., Peckham S., Goodwin N. Asking the right questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2008; 6 (7):1–12. [ PMC free article : PMC2500008 ] [ PubMed : 18613961 ] [ CrossRef ]
Archer N., Fevrier-Thomas U., Lokker C., McKibbon K. A., Straus S.E. Personal health records: a scoping review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2011; 18 (4):515–522. [ PMC free article : PMC3128401 ] [ PubMed : 21672914 ]
Arksey H., O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005; 8 (1):19–32.
A systematic, tool-supported method for conducting literature reviews in information systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2011); June 9 to 11; Helsinki, Finland. 2011.
Baumeister R. F., Leary M.R. Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology. 1997; 1 (3):311–320.
Becker L. A., Oxman A.D. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Overviews of reviews; pp. 607–631.
Borenstein M., Hedges L., Higgins J., Rothstein H. Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2009.
Cook D. J., Mulrow C. D., Haynes B. Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997; 126 (5):376–380. [ PubMed : 9054282 ]
Cooper H., Hedges L.V. In: The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 2nd ed. Cooper H., Hedges L. V., Valentine J. C., editors. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. Research synthesis as a scientific process; pp. 3–17.
Cooper H. M. Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society. 1988; 1 (1):104–126.
Cronin P., Ryan F., Coughlan M. Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing. 2008; 17 (1):38–43. [ PubMed : 18399395 ]
Darlow S., Wen K.Y. Development testing of mobile health interventions for cancer patient self-management: A review. Health Informatics Journal. 2015 (online before print). [ PubMed : 25916831 ] [ CrossRef ]
Daudt H. M., van Mossel C., Scott S.J. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2013; 13 :48. [ PMC free article : PMC3614526 ] [ PubMed : 23522333 ] [ CrossRef ]
Davies P. The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education. 2000; 26 (3-4):365–378.
Deeks J. J., Higgins J. P. T., Altman D.G. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses; pp. 243–296.
Deshazo J. P., Lavallie D. L., Wolf F.M. Publication trends in the medical informatics literature: 20 years of “Medical Informatics” in mesh . bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2009; 9 :7. [ PMC free article : PMC2652453 ] [ PubMed : 19159472 ] [ CrossRef ]
Dixon-Woods M., Agarwal S., Jones D., Young B., Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2005; 10 (1):45–53. [ PubMed : 15667704 ]
Finfgeld-Connett D., Johnson E.D. Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2013; 69 (1):194–204. [ PMC free article : PMC3424349 ] [ PubMed : 22591030 ]
Grady B., Myers K. M., Nelson E. L., Belz N., Bennett L., Carnahan L. … Guidelines Working Group. Evidence-based practice for telemental health. Telemedicine Journal and E Health. 2011; 17 (2):131–148. [ PubMed : 21385026 ]
Green B. N., Johnson C. D., Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. 2006; 5 (3):101–117. [ PMC free article : PMC2647067 ] [ PubMed : 19674681 ]
Greenhalgh T., Wong G., Westhorp G., Pawson R. Protocol–realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: evolving standards ( rameses ). bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 :115. [ PMC free article : PMC3173389 ] [ PubMed : 21843376 ]
Gurol-Urganci I., de Jongh T., Vodopivec-Jamsek V., Atun R., Car J. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database System Review. 2013; 12 cd 007458. [ PMC free article : PMC6485985 ] [ PubMed : 24310741 ] [ CrossRef ]
Hart C. Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE Publications; 1998.
Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane book series. Hoboken, nj : Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
Jesson J., Matheson L., Lacey F.M. Doing your literature review: traditional and systematic techniques. Los Angeles & London: SAGE Publications; 2011.
King W. R., He J. Understanding the role and methods of meta-analysis in IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2005; 16 :1.
Kirkevold M. Integrative nursing research — an important strategy to further the development of nursing science and nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1997; 25 (5):977–984. [ PubMed : 9147203 ]
Kitchenham B., Charters S. ebse Technical Report Version 2.3. Keele & Durham. uk : Keele University & University of Durham; 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering.
Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic diseases: a critical assessment of their methodological quality. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2013; 15 (7):e150. [ PMC free article : PMC3785977 ] [ PubMed : 23880072 ]
Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Effects of home telemonitoring interventions on patients with chronic heart failure: an overview of systematic reviews. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2015; 17 (3):e63. [ PMC free article : PMC4376138 ] [ PubMed : 25768664 ]
Levac D., Colquhoun H., O’Brien K. K. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science. 2010; 5 (1):69. [ PMC free article : PMC2954944 ] [ PubMed : 20854677 ]
Levy Y., Ellis T.J. A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Science. 2006; 9 :181–211.
Liberati A., Altman D. G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche P. C., Ioannidis J. P. A. et al. Moher D. The prisma statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009; 151 (4):W-65. [ PubMed : 19622512 ]
Lyden J. R., Zickmund S. L., Bhargava T. D., Bryce C. L., Conroy M. B., Fischer G. S. et al. McTigue K. M. Implementing health information technology in a patient-centered manner: Patient experiences with an online evidence-based lifestyle intervention. Journal for Healthcare Quality. 2013; 35 (5):47–57. [ PubMed : 24004039 ]
Mickan S., Atherton H., Roberts N. W., Heneghan C., Tilson J.K. Use of handheld computers in clinical practice: a systematic review. bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2014; 14 :56. [ PMC free article : PMC4099138 ] [ PubMed : 24998515 ]
Moher D. The problem of duplicate systematic reviews. British Medical Journal. 2013; 347 (5040) [ PubMed : 23945367 ] [ CrossRef ]
Montori V. M., Wilczynski N. L., Morgan D., Haynes R. B., Hedges T. Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts. bmc Medicine. 2003; 1 :2. [ PMC free article : PMC281591 ] [ PubMed : 14633274 ]
Mulrow C. D. The medical review article: state of the science. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1987; 106 (3):485–488. [ PubMed : 3813259 ] [ CrossRef ]
Evidence-based information systems: A decade later. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems ; 2011. Retrieved from http://aisel .aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent .cgi?article =1221&context =ecis2011 .
Okoli C., Schabram K. A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research. ssrn Electronic Journal. 2010
Otte-Trojel T., de Bont A., Rundall T. G., van de Klundert J. How outcomes are achieved through patient portals: a realist review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2014; 21 (4):751–757. [ PMC free article : PMC4078283 ] [ PubMed : 24503882 ]
Paré G., Trudel M.-C., Jaana M., Kitsiou S. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management. 2015; 52 (2):183–199.
Patsopoulos N. A., Analatos A. A., Ioannidis J.P. A. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005; 293 (19):2362–2366. [ PubMed : 15900006 ]
Paul M. M., Greene C. M., Newton-Dame R., Thorpe L. E., Perlman S. E., McVeigh K. H., Gourevitch M.N. The state of population health surveillance using electronic health records: A narrative review. Population Health Management. 2015; 18 (3):209–216. [ PubMed : 25608033 ]
Pawson R. Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. London: SAGE Publications; 2006.
Pawson R., Greenhalgh T., Harvey G., Walshe K. Realist review—a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. 2005; 10 (Suppl 1):21–34. [ PubMed : 16053581 ]
Petersen K., Vakkalanka S., Kuzniarz L. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology. 2015; 64 :1–18.
Petticrew M., Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, ma : Blackwell Publishing Co; 2006.
Rousseau D. M., Manning J., Denyer D. Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. The Academy of Management Annals. 2008; 2 (1):475–515.
Rowe F. What literature review is not: diversity, boundaries and recommendations. European Journal of Information Systems. 2014; 23 (3):241–255.
Shea B. J., Hamel C., Wells G. A., Bouter L. M., Kristjansson E., Grimshaw J. et al. Boers M. amstar is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009; 62 (10):1013–1020. [ PubMed : 19230606 ]
Shepperd S., Lewin S., Straus S., Clarke M., Eccles M. P., Fitzpatrick R. et al. Sheikh A. Can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions? PLoS Medicine. 2009; 6 (8):e1000086. [ PMC free article : PMC2717209 ] [ PubMed : 19668360 ]
Silva B. M., Rodrigues J. J., de la Torre Díez I., López-Coronado M., Saleem K. Mobile-health: A review of current state in 2015. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2015; 56 :265–272. [ PubMed : 26071682 ]
Smith V., Devane D., Begley C., Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 (1):15. [ PMC free article : PMC3039637 ] [ PubMed : 21291558 ]
Sylvester A., Tate M., Johnstone D. Beyond synthesis: re-presenting heterogeneous research literature. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2013; 32 (12):1199–1215.
Templier M., Paré G. A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2015; 37 (6):112–137.
Thomas J., Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2008; 8 (1):45. [ PMC free article : PMC2478656 ] [ PubMed : 18616818 ]
Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2009); Verona, Italy. 2009.
Webster J., Watson R.T. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 2002; 26 (2):11.
Whitlock E. P., Lin J. S., Chou R., Shekelle P., Robinson K.A. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008; 148 (10):776–782. [ PubMed : 18490690 ]

This publication is licensed under a Creative Commons License, Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0): see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Cite this Page Paré G, Kitsiou S. Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews. In: Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.
PDF version of this title (4.5M)

In this Page

Introduction
Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps
Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations
Concluding Remarks

Related information

PMC PubMed Central citations
PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Ev... Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Create an Account

Enter your email address to receive your free PDF download.

Please note that by doing so you agree to be added to our monthly email newsletter distribution list.

Sign in to Cureus

By joining Cureus, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use .

Download Cureus Media Kit

IMAGES

21 Research Limitations Examples (2024)
Limitations of Literature Review Papers
Limitations of literature review papers.
How to Present the Limitations of the Study Examples
Writing Discussion, Limitations, Future Work and Conclusion for your Systematic Literature Review
how to write limitations in literature review

VIDEO

Writing the Literature Review (recorded lecture during pandemic)
English Literature (MDC) Previous UG 1st & 2nd Sem Papers || Kashmir University
Purposes of literature review #bsc nursing #nursing research
Intersectionality clarified
How to Do a Good Literature Review for Research Paper and Thesis
Chapter 2: Project Writing

COMMENTS

8 common problems with literature reviews and how to fix them
In our recent paper in Nature Ecology and Evolution, we highlight 8 common problems with traditional literature review methods, provide examples for each from the field of environmental management and ecology, and provide practical solutions for ways to mitigate them. Problem. Solution. Lack of relevance - limited stakeholder engagement can ...
Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them
Environment. Policy*. Research Design. Systematic Reviews as Topic*. Traditional approaches to reviewing literature may be susceptible to bias and result in incorrect decisions. This is of particular concern when reviews address policy- and practice-relevant questions. Systematic reviews have been introduced as a more rigorous approach to ...
Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines
As mentioned previously, there are a number of existing guidelines for literature reviews. Depending on the methodology needed to achieve the purpose of the review, all types can be helpful and appropriate to reach a specific goal (for examples, please see Table 1).These approaches can be qualitative, quantitative, or have a mixed design depending on the phase of the review.
Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them
Abstract. Traditional approaches to reviewing literature may be susceptible to bias and result in incorrect decisions. This is of particular concern when reviews address policy- and practice ...
Eight common problems with science literature reviews and how to fix them
First, traditional literature reviews can lack relevance. This is because limited stakeholder engagement can lead to a review that is of limited practical use to decision-makers. Second, reviews ...
Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them
The aims of literature reviews range from providing a primer for the uninitiated to summarizing the evidence for decision making 1. Traditional approaches to literature reviews are susceptible to ...
What is a literature review?
A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations. It contains the most pertinent studies and points to important ...
How to Write a Literature Review
Examples of literature reviews. Step 1 - Search for relevant literature. Step 2 - Evaluate and select sources. Step 3 - Identify themes, debates, and gaps. Step 4 - Outline your literature review's structure. Step 5 - Write your literature review.
Systematic and other reviews: criteria and complexities
A systematic review follows explicit methodology to answer a well-defined research question by searching the literature comprehensively, evaluating the quantity and quality of research evidence rigorously, and analyzing the evidence to synthesize an answer to the research question. The evidence gathered in systematic reviews can be qualitative ...
Approaching literature review for academic purposes: The Literature
A sophisticated literature review (LR) can result in a robust dissertation/thesis by scrutinizing the main problem examined by the academic study; anticipating research hypotheses, methods and results; and maintaining the interest of the audience in how the dissertation/thesis will provide solutions for the current gaps in a particular field.
Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review
Literature reviews establish the foundation of academic inquires. However, in the planning field, we lack rigorous systematic reviews. In this article, through a systematic search on the methodology of literature review, we categorize a typology of literature reviews, discuss steps in conducting a systematic literature review, and provide suggestions on how to enhance rigor in literature ...
Writing A Literature Review: 7 Mistakes To Avoid
Mistake #1: Over-reliance on low-quality sources. One of the most common issues we see in literature reviews is an over-reliance on low-quality sources. This includes a broad collection of non-academic sources like blog posts, opinion pieces, publications by advocacy groups and daily news articles. Of course, just because a piece of content ...
Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic
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 philosophy of review procedures, protocols, and nomenclatures, triggering non-parsimonious reporting and confusion due to overlapping similarities. To address the aforementioned limitations, we adopt a pragmatic approach to ...
Writing an effective literature review
Mapping the gap. The purpose of the literature review section of a manuscript is not to report what is known about your topic. The purpose is to identify what remains unknown—what academic writing scholar Janet Giltrow has called the 'knowledge deficit'—thus establishing the need for your research study [].In an earlier Writer's Craft instalment, the Problem-Gap-Hook heuristic was ...
Writing a literature review
A formal literature review is an evidence-based, in-depth analysis of a subject. There are many reasons for writing one and these will influence the length and style of your review, but in essence a literature review is a critical appraisal of the current collective knowledge on a subject. Rather than just being an exhaustive list of all that ...
Advantages and disadvantages of literature review
According to the University of Illinois (2022), literature reviews allow researchers to gain familiarity with the existing knowledge in their selected field, as well as the boundaries and limitations of that field. Creation of new body of knowledge. One of the key advantages of literature review is that it creates new body of knowledge.
Writing a Literature Review
Writing a Literature Review. A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and ...
Conducting a Literature Review: Why Do A Literature Review?
Besides the obvious reason for students -- because it is assigned! -- a literature review helps you explore the research that has come before you, to see how your research question has (or has not) already been addressed. You identify: core research in the field. experts in the subject area. methodology you may want to use (or avoid)
Systematic reviews: Brief overview of methods, limitations, and
CONCLUSION. Siddaway 16 noted that, "The best reviews synthesize studies to draw broad theoretical conclusions about what the literature means, linking theory to evidence and evidence to theory" (p. 747). To that end, high quality systematic reviews are explicit, rigorous, and reproducible. It is these three criteria that should guide authors seeking to write a systematic review or editors ...
The benefits and challenges of using systematic reviews in
A forthcoming systematic review on microcredit impact and women's empowerment by Vaessen et al. (forthcoming) has managed to conduct a meta-analysis including studies that are conceptually and methodologically diverse. The challenges and limitations of doing this are discussed in Duvendack et al. (Citation 2012).
What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)
A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship, demonstrating your understanding of the topic and showing ...
What is a Literature Review? Definition, Types, and Examples
Learn the meaning of a literature review, its types, and structure. Get tips and examples to write a compelling literature review for your dissertation. ... The review aims to highlight the strengths and limitations of these policies and identify gaps in the research that future studies should address. Thematic Organisation . The literature is ...
Systematic literature searching in social work: A practical guide with
Context: In response to the growth of evidence-based practice in social work, systematic literature reviews offer significant value to social work but are often met with concerns of time scarcity. Purpose: Through a case study search strategy addressing the research question "What are practicing frontline social workers' experiences of bureaucracy?," this article seeks to promote ...
The Literature Review: A Foundation for High-Quality Medical Education
Purpose and Importance of the Literature Review. An understanding of the current literature is critical for all phases of a research study. Lingard 9 recently invoked the "journal-as-conversation" metaphor as a way of understanding how one's research fits into the larger medical education conversation. As she described it: "Imagine yourself joining a conversation at a social event.
Augmented reality applications in construction productivity: A
The limitations of this systematic literature review are: (1) most experiments or case studies analysed in this literature review are conducted in a simulated situation, which may not reflect some productivity factors in a practical situation; (2) the research only focuses on evaluating construction productivity at the task level, which cannot ...
A Systematic Literature Review on Flexible Strategies and Performance
However, a systematic literature review (SLR) paper on this topic can further help to understand the scientific progress, research gaps, and avenues for future research. ... However, this review article has some limitations. First, we consider only journal articles published until 2023 and written in English. Second, the scope of the study was ...
Digital
The PRISMA approach, a systematic literature review model, was used in this work to make sure that the greatest number of studies on the topic were accessed. ... risks, limitations, and opportunities associated with the financial variables, and (iii) implications, theoretical contributions, questions, potentiality, and outlook of BCA/FinTech ...
The influence of social support in the prevention and treatment of
The comprehensive literature has been summarized with pertinent information regarding the potential of social support as a viable strategy of PPD. Methodology This narrative review included all peer-reviewed published randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental design that included social support as a means for treatment or prevention ...
Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews
9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations. EHealth researchers have at their disposal a number of approaches and methods for making sense out of existing literature, all with the purpose of casting current research findings into historical contexts or explaining contradictions that might exist among a set of primary research studies conducted on a particular topic.
Genomic-Based Early Detection Screening: A Literature Review ...
Numerous genomic-based early detection screening tests are being developed. These tests have the potential to revolutionize current single-organ screening paradigms, especially in gastrointestinal cancers. In this review, we underscore the performance of these genomic-based early detection tests based on prospective clinical trials. Moreover, we discuss a professional advancement for ...

Neal Haddaway

About the author

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Related Posts

“But I’m not ready!” Common barriers to writing and how to overcome them

“Remember a condition of academic writing is that we expose ourselves to critique” – 15 steps to revising journal articles

A simple guide to ethical co-authorship

How common is academic plagiarism?

Save citation to file

Add to My Bibliography

Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them

Similar articles

LinkOut - more resources

Miscellaneous

Eight common problems with science literature reviews and how to fix them

Disclosure statement

Collaboration

Want to write?

Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them

Access options

Similar content being viewed by others

Challenges and recommendations on the conduct of systematic reviews of observational epidemiologic studies in environmental and occupational health

Insights from a cross-sector review on how to conceptualise the quality of use of research evidence

The past, present and future of Registered Reports

Acknowledgements

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Additional information

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

This article is cited by

Systematic review and meta-analysis of ex-post evaluations on the effectiveness of carbon pricing

Facing the storm: Developing corporate adaptation and resilience action plans amid climate uncertainty

A review of the necessity of a multi-layer land-use planning

Synthesizing the relationships between environmental DNA concentration and freshwater macrophyte abundance: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Quick links

Literature Reviews

What is a Literature Review?

Purpose of a Literature Review

Limitations of a Literature Review

Librarian Assistance

Have a language expert improve your writing

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Table of contents

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

Make a list of keywords

Search for relevant sources

Take notes and cite your sources

Chronological

Methodological

Theoretical

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Writing A Literature Review

Overview: 7 Literature Review Killers

Mistake #1: Over-reliance on low-quality sources

Mistake #2: A lack of landmark/seminal literature

Mistake #3: A lack of current literature

Mistake #4: Description instead of integration and synthesis

Mistake #5: Irrelevant or unfocused content

Need a helping hand?

Mistake #6: Poor chapter structure and layout

Mistake #7: Plagiarism and poor referencing

Recap: 7 Literature Review Mistakes

Psst… there’s more!

10 Comments

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Author: M Rahman

Related Posts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

What are the parts of a lit review?