How to Write a Relevant, Accurate and Sustainable Literature Review Using a Generally Accepted Research Protocol (GARP): A Multidisciplinary Mixed Research Method

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to design a Generally Accepted Research Protocol (GARP) for conducting literature reviews, aimed at guiding new researchers and assisting editors, practitioners, experts, and reviewers in understanding the essential steps and processes of writing a Literature Review Paper (LRP). To achieve this, we collected a total of n = 2405 peer-reviewed research and review articles across three disciplinary groups—Education and Engineering, Medical Sciences, and Accounting, Finance, Economics, and Management (AFEM)—from seven databases (Elsevier, Emerald, Nature Portfolio, Springer Nature & Link, Taylor & Francis, Wiley, and Google Scholar) published between 1999 and March 2025. We conducted five (5) cycles of descriptive and semi-qualitative content analysis following the GARP method developed in this study and identified n = 115 relevant articles, which form the foundational core of the GARP Framework presented in this study. Our findings also reveal that several similar initiatives have been undertaken across the analyzed disciplines, with most of these studies focusing on systematic review guidelines based on the PRISMA statement and designed for discipline-specific applications. Our method differs from previous initiatives by proposing a universal alternative method for literature review writing. The goal is to reduce the noise (propositions and steps) by focusing on the steps that really matter when writing a synthesis: data collection, data processing, and data reporting.

1. Introduction

A literature review is a research synthesis and a major step of a research article. It is generally referred to as a review article in the first case and included as a section in the second case. In a research article (often Section 2), a literature review consists of a summary of prior studies related to the discussed topic or subject, the citation of theories involved (if any), the definition of key concepts, the development of the hypotheses, or the research background, or the response to the research questions of the study at hand via prior studies’ results [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]. As a review article, a literature review is an alternative type of research, complex or simple in nature (paradoxical) depending on the method, purpose, objectives, and research questions [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18].

A literature review article consists of several sections (four to six in general) including or excluding a methodology section, and often without a literature review, depending on the methodology [19,20,21,22,23]. While the objective of a literature review section is to briefly summarize prior studies related to the researched subject and serve as a foundation for the practical/experimental section (methodology), a review article seeks to give an extended summary of prior studies to better understand the past, present, and possible future direction of a particular subject, topic, or concept; support an opinion; test a hypothesis; justify the development of a model, framework, guideline, methodology, and/or system; and develop a new theory.

In the past two decades, a myriad of review articles have been conducted by researchers and scholars across disciplines for various reasons and purposes all over the world [2,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39]. Such interest is not only due to its simplicity, complexity, and compulsory nature in regard to the research methodology and section, but also to its ability to summarize, define, clarify, and identify gaps and future directions of a particular subject or topic. The potentiality of bringing clarity to chaos makes a literature review one of the preferred research types of academicians and scholars globally. However, this interest has given birth to several types of literature review conducted using different and/or slightly similar methods across disciplines, which makes it difficult or impossible for researchers to effectively compare, judge, or reproduce.

Given comparability and replicability being the core and essence of scientific research, there is a need for a Generally Accepted Research Protocol (GARP) for literature review articles to serve as a foundation for all researchers and an alternative to the existing various methods. Several researchers have made various propositions, designed adequate models, and developed suitable conceptual frameworks to conduct a literature review; however, there is still no GARP or standalone methodology on “how to conduct a literature review” due to the lack of consensus on the subject but most importantly because of the particularity of disciplines, the variety of field experts, and the divergence of opinion in regard to how to conduct a literature review [2,10,24,26,40,41].

It is important to note that while the methodology of review articles differs from one researcher to another because of the reasons stated above, a systematic review and mixed literature review are the leading types of review articles conducted by researchers across the disciplines selected for this study due to their flexibility (mixed review) and special characteristics—meta-analysis and protocol (systematic review). The objective of this research is to propose a relevant, accurate, and sustainable method for literature review writing (GARP-4-LR) and fill the gaps of previous studies by conducting a multidisciplinary research analysis; the goal is to design an alternative universal framework for literature review. To accomplish this, we collected 2405 articles from seven (7) reputable publishers and one supporting database published between 1999 and 2025 (March) and conducted a series of descriptive and semi-qualitative content analyses to reach a final sample size of 115 articles that we use as the foundation for the design of the GARP framework To reach this conclusion, we address the following questions:

• RQ1: What is a literature review?
• RQ2: How many types of literature review are there?
• RQ3: Does it matter to write a literature review?
• RQ4: What are the challenges researchers face when writing a literature review?
• RQ5: Which type of literature review is dominant across the presently studied disciplines?
• RQ6: How to write a literature review?

Despite the widespread adoption of rigorous protocols such as PRISMA and SPAR 4 SLR, a truly universal and discipline-agnostic framework that focuses exclusively on the essential synthesis tasks—data collection, data processing, and data reporting—remains absent. Existing guidelines are often tailored to specific fields (e.g., PRISMA’s original orientation toward health sciences) or incorporate extensive checklists and decision points that, while valuable, can overwhelm novice researchers and slow the review process. The present study addresses this gap by introducing the GARP 4LR framework, a streamlined, 24-step protocol distilled from a large-scale, multidisciplinary content analysis. A detailed comparison with PRISMA 2020 and SPAR 4 SLR is provided in Section 5.1 highlighting how GARP 4LR reduces procedural “noise” while maintaining methodological rigor. Furthermore, a short focus framework derived from the full protocol (Section 4.2) is offered to guide users toward the core actions that really matter in a literature synthesis.

By answering these questions, this study will contribute to the literature on review writing, fill the gaps of previous research, propose a new guideline (GARP) for literature review, serve as a guideline and model for students, educators, reviewers, editors, and practitioners across various disciplines, and identify and propose future directions for writing a literature review.

The following

Table 1. Summary of the scope of the research (targeted disciplines and subjects).

Field	Discipline	Research Area/Subject
Applied Science (AP)	Education and Engineering (EE)	Information and Communication Technology
		Writing
		Teaching and Learning
		Linguistic
		Computer Science
		Automation
		Machine Learning
		Artificial Intelligence
		Transportation & construction
		Others (Mathematics, TLLM)
Medical Science (MS)	Mental Health and Health Care (MH&HC)	Mental Health
		Health care
		Pandemic & chronicle Diseases
		Patient care (Nursing)
		Other (Pharmacy, Radiography)
Social Science and Humanities (SS&H)	Accounting, Finance, Economy and Management (AFEM)	Supply Chain & Logistics
		Information Technology
		Digital Transformation
		Corporate Performance
		Product/HR management
		E-commerce
		Innovation
		Sustainability
		Other (ESG, Labor, Tourism)
Only peer-reviewed research articles and review articles were collected (Guideline and Practical studies)

Note: For comparability purposes, we grouped the collected papers into three categories described above.

shows a summary of the scope of this study.

The remaining part of this research is designed as follows: Section 2 reviews the literature on how to write a literature review article, Section 3 describes the methodology, Section 4 displays the results and findings, Section 5 discusses the results and findings, and Section 5 concludes the research by synthesizing the findings, addressing the limitations and proposing some recommendations and future directions.

2. Literature Review

What is a literature review?

A literature review synthesizes previous research to address a specific goal using either original or established methods [24,41]. Wee and Banister [42] define it as a structured journal paper that organizes and adds value to existing literature in a specific field. This excludes more quantitative approaches like meta-analyses or scientometric studies [43]. A systematic literature review follows a structured process to evaluate literature on a specific research question [44]. It identifies, appraises, and summarizes empirical evidence. Meta-analysis statistically analyzes results when appropriate [10].

How many types of literature reviews are there?

Several review articles have been published across various disciplines. Some classify literature review papers (LRPs) into distinct types [24,45,46,47,48], while others mention only dominant categories like systematic, narrative, scoping, integrative, conceptual, qualitative, quantitative, and mixed reviews. Some studies avoid classification due to its complexity or limited research scope. For example, Wee and Banister [42] note that transport research uses diverse methods, while engineering and physics emphasize less stochastic variability than the social sciences. Although they do not label LRP types explicitly, they describe reviews using criteria like research questions, methodology, theory, and structure.

Why does it matter to write a literature review?

Writing a literature review is a vital step for researchers seeking to understand a subject, propose solutions, or develop new theories [24,45]. According to Wee [26], literature review papers (LRPs) offer valuable, structured overviews of specific fields and highlight methodological strengths, weaknesses, and research implications—especially useful for newcomers. Literature reviews can serve as background in research articles, theses, project proposals [49], or standalone publications [50,51]. Often, they become milestone contributions [2,52].

Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) can challenge assumptions, identify problems, and spark new discussions [53]. They help address research questions beyond the scope of individual studies and support theory development [54,55]. SLRs demand careful planning, execution, and transparent reporting [24] and often adopt multidisciplinary approaches to bridge gaps between research fields. They are essential for identifying patterns, overlaps, and differences across disciplines [31]. SLRs can describe the state of literature, test hypotheses, critique findings, and extend existing knowledge [56]. Interdisciplinary SLRs integrate diverse methodologies to map and explain research landscapes [27,57,58].

Which types of literature review are dominant across the studied disciplines?

Systematic review articles have become the most trending types of literature review conducted by scholars across various disciplines, followed by mixed review articles, scoping literature reviews, and narrative literature reviews [45,53]. For instance, almost all PhD or large research project proposals in the management domain include such a standalone SLR to build a solid foundation for their subsequent work packages [24]. Moreover, the database of this study shows that SLR, MLR, and scoping literature are the dominant types of LRP across the studied disciplines; however, this may be related to the methodology and research approach applied during the paper collection phase.

Various frameworks, guidelines, methods, and procedures on how to conduct a literature review have been proposed by researchers from different fields in order to help researchers and make review articles more structured, impactful, and replicable [1,27,31,54,59,60,61].

2.1. Literature Review in Education and Engineering (Computer Science, Transportation, Information and Communication)

Numerous researchers have proposed various methods for writing literature review articles (LRAs) in fields such as education and engineering [31,62]. Wee [26] highlights that in transport studies, a broader range of methods is applied, making literature review approaches more diverse. In engineering and physics, stochastic components are often minimal or absent, unlike in the social sciences, which influences empirical review practices. The use of meta-analysis also varies across disciplines. For example, it is common in applied linguistics [63,64] but relatively new in psycholinguistics [65].

As knowledge syntheses become more prevalent, their roles in teaching, research, and practice have expanded [66]. This trend has led to more systematic, transparent, and reproducible review procedures [27,59]. However, traditional review methods have limitations, often being either cross-sectional or longitudinal. To address this, Kosztyan et al. [2] introduced the Systematic Iterative Multilayer Literature Review (SIMILAR) method, which integrates iterative refinement, multilayer network theory, and both cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis. Their findings showed that “theory development” and “narrative reviews” are the most cited categories, while critical reviews are fragmented and rarely interconnected.

2.2. Literature Review in Accounting, Finance, Economy, and Management (AFEM)

A literature review is a foundational component of research, particularly within the social sciences, due to the complex and often interdependent relationships among variables. In fields such as psychology, management, education, and public policy, independent variables like customer satisfaction or organizational performance are influenced by numerous known and unknown factors. These complexities make literature reviews essential tools for synthesizing fragmented knowledge, understanding causal relationships, identifying gaps, and guiding future inquiry [1,26,67,68].

Researchers conduct literature reviews for various reasons: to clarify and define concepts, summarize existing literature on a topic, develop or support new theories, or provide guidance on how to write effective literature review articles [1,19]. In the management domain, the use of systematic or structured literature reviews (SLRs) has grown significantly, with nearly 90% of SLRs published in the last decade. Despite their popularity, existing guidance tends to focus more on the technical conduct of reviews rather than on how to present findings in a compelling, theory-driven, and impactful manner [25,69].

Sauer [24] addresses this gap by offering an integrative review of leading SLR guidelines, proposing a six-step process further broken into 14 distinct decisions. These include forming a research question, identifying primary study characteristics, retrieving relevant literature, selecting and synthesizing sources, and finally reporting the findings. Rather than replicating existing models, Sauer enriches them by aligning methodological, theoretical, and practical insights, helping scholars design and publish high-impact, theory-based literature reviews.

Across the humanities and social sciences, debates continue over how to integrate divergent methodologies [70,71,72]. The emergence of new methodologies has opened opportunities to combine qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods within literature reviews [27]. For instance, Kritzinger et al. [73] conducted a categorical review in the field of digital transformation in manufacturing. Their classification into Digital Model (DM), Digital Shadow (DS), and Digital Twin (DT) highlighted gaps in the literature, particularly in more advanced DT research, and served as a model for similar reviews in other fields.

Similarly, Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) has become increasingly prominent in business and management research. However, Paola et al. [19] observed a disconnect between theoretical foundations and methodological applications in many QCA-based studies. Reviewing 675 articles, they found that most focused on method rather than theory. Moreover, they noted the frequent misuse of QCA for hypothesis testing, despite its incompatibility with set-theoretic principles. Their study provides rigorous guidelines for conducting and reporting QCA, emphasizing alignment between theory and method to improve configurational theorizing.

Other researchers have contributed by mapping the landscape of literature reviews across disciplines. For example, Gorman [3] analyzed 343 literature reviews in operations research and management science, identifying publication trends, key journals, geographic distribution, and thematic gaps. His work serves as a valuable resource for researchers looking to publish LRAs and for understanding where scholarly attention has been concentrated.

Meta-analytical approaches have also evolved to offer more sophisticated ways of synthesizing quantitative research. Kirca and Yaprak [13] explored the use of meta-analysis in international business literature over a 30-year span. Their review outlined the meta-analytic process and suggested future directions, highlighting how such techniques enhance theory development by enabling researchers to systematically analyze large volumes of empirical data.

Design science is another growing methodological approach, particularly relevant for applied disciplines such as purchasing and supply management (PSM). Stange et al. [22] argue that design science research—focused on creating, testing, and evaluating artifacts to solve real-world problems—remains underutilized in PSM, with less than 4% of publications in flagship journals reflecting this methodology. Their study aims to advance PSM by promoting design science as a legitimate and necessary complement to traditional research methods.

Design science differs from classical research in that it produces actionable, normative, and prescriptive knowledge, rather than descriptive insights. While classical research seeks to explain existing phenomena, design science aims to build solutions—artifacts such as tools, models, or frameworks—that address stakeholder needs [74,75,76]. This approach closes the gap between academic rigor and practical relevance, helping to address critiques that academic research often lacks real-world applicability [77].

To support PSM scholars in conducting and publishing design-oriented research, Stange et al. [22] offer publication guidelines aimed at researchers, editors, reviewers, and practitioners. These guidelines clarify how to present design science research in academic journals, including outlining the necessary steps in the research process and how to communicate findings effectively. Their contribution emphasizes that design science, when rigorously applied, is equal in scientific value to classical methodologies and can generate highly relevant and impactful knowledge.

The present study aligns with this broader movement toward improving the quality and relevance of literature review articles. Inspired by existing gaps and innovations in literature review methodology, we propose a new approach—GARP4LR (Guided, Analytical, Reflexive, and Practical framework for Literature Reviews). This model aims to support researchers in navigating the increasingly complex landscape of literature review writing. GARP4LR integrates methodological rigor with theoretical depth and practical orientation. By doing so, it empowers scholars to produce reviews that are not only methodologically sound but also theoretically rich and directly relevant to their fields.

Just as meta-analysis, QCA, and design science have reshaped how we synthesize knowledge, GARP4LR seeks to establish a standard for writing impactful, publishable, and meaningful literature review articles. We are confident that when applied properly, GARP4LR can serve as a cornerstone for researchers and scholars committed to producing high-quality LRAs that contribute significantly to theory, practice, and academic discourse.

2.3. Literature Review in Medicine (Mental Health and Healthcare)

Medical research dominates academic research (Sci-Hub database), likely because health and human life are universally valued, and living beings provide a stable, accessible subject, and valuable data for empirical study—regardless of environmental variation. As such, conducting a literature review (LR) is crucial for medical researchers, scholars, clinicians, and practitioners to compare findings, evaluate treatments, and track progress in the field. According to Wee [26], the medical literature often includes empirical studies testing medications and treatment protocols using standard practices such as double-blind data collection and established analytical methods.

Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are widely used in medicine, psychology, and communication sciences. In medicine, SLRs are commonly indexed in dedicated platforms like the Cochrane Library, allowing easy access for researchers [31,44]. Cooper [78] proposed classifying literature reviews based on focus, goal, and audience. Later, Cook et al. [79] differentiated narrative from systematic reviews, while Green et al. [80] added meta-analyses and meta-syntheses as extensions. These frameworks were initially developed in medical research but have since influenced other disciplines like information systems [51,81].

Systematic review reporting, however, remains inconsistent in fields like neurosurgery. Akhigbe et al. [10] emphasize the importance of PRISMA compliance to ensure quality, improve transparency, and support clinical application—especially in areas like cerebral arteriovenous malformation. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses also play a key role in developing clinical guidelines, with many funding agencies requiring them to justify new research initiatives.

Beyond systematic reviews, other approaches have emerged. Durocher et al. [82], for example, conducted a realist review to explore guideline implementability across 278 studies. Their analysis identified two key factors: (1) content creation, emphasizing stakeholder involvement and feasibility, and (2) effective communication using clear, persuasive language.

Carroll et al. [40] tackled the challenge of monitoring and reporting fidelity in non-drug, non-surgical interventions, which tend to be more complex and variable. Using the JBI-recommended scoping review method, they developed the ReFiND protocol to improve transparency and reproducibility in such interventions.

Overall, medical studies lead the academic field in terms of literature review and guidelines articles published, as most evidence-based medicine (EBM) relies heavily on rigorous literature review methodologies to inform decision-making and optimize care [10]. These evolving approaches continue to shape best practices across the medical research landscape.

2.4. Different Types of Approaches to Literature Review Papers

Literature review (LR) papers serve diverse functions across academic disciplines. Their categorization depends largely on their methodological orientation, structure, and intended purpose. Scholars from different research fields have proposed multiple classifications of LRPs, often shaped by the particular demands of their disciplines and personalized criteria.

For instance, Wee [26], building on a typology presented in his study, identified several forms of literature review papers. The most conventional type is the classic literature review, which typically outlines the purpose and structure of the review, organizes the literature in a logical sequence, and compares the similarities and differences between sources. It usually ends with a discussion and conclusion, which provides the added value of the review. Another format is the empirical question and methodology response review, which explores specific research questions and methodological frameworks. A further alternative involves adopting a non-traditional perspective on a familiar problem—an approach that can highlight new dimensions, disentangle complex concepts, or offer alternative interpretations.

Additionally, some LRPs focus on a narrowly defined theme without attempting to comprehensively review the entire body of literature. Others propose a new conceptual model and explore supporting literature that validates or builds upon this framework. In such cases, as demonstrated by Van Acker, Van Wee, and Witlox [83] in their study of travel behavior, the literature is reviewed through the lens of an introduced framework, emphasizing theory-building over exhaustive coverage.

Wee [26] emphasized that the diversity in LRP types makes the process of writing one both challenging and rewarding. Similarly, Akhigbe et al. [10] proposed an alternative classification of LRPs into nine categories, grouped into four broader types: (1) Describing (Descriptive and Narrative Reviews); (2) Understanding (Critical and Scoping Reviews); (3) Explaining (Theory Development and Realist Reviews); and (4) Testing Theory (Qualitative Systematic, Meta-Analysis, and Umbrella Reviews). These classifications highlight the varied aims and methodological choices underlying literature review work.

Among these types, the systematic literature review (SLR) is recognized as one of the most rigorous and widely adopted approaches. According to Sauer [24], SLRs and structured reviews, though referred to by different names, are methodologically similar. Both approaches treat the analysis of existing literature as a study in its own right, following a transparent, replicable process [55,69]. Their purpose extends beyond merely summarizing prior work—they aim to map the research landscape at a given time, guide future inquiries, and make subsequent research efforts more efficient and impactful [84].

SLRs have gained significant traction in fields such as management, evidenced by journals and special issues exclusively dedicated to standalone SLRs [24,53,55]. Their importance is particularly pronounced in interdisciplinary research, where they are often employed to synthesize knowledge across disciplines. Interdisciplinary research seeks to harmonize insights from multiple fields into a coherent whole [85,86], a task made increasingly urgent as societal challenges demand cross-disciplinary collaboration.

However, interdisciplinary research also presents difficulties—methodologies may vary significantly between fields, and researchers may struggle to evaluate unfamiliar literature. SLRs offer a structured way to navigate this complexity by enabling the identification and integration of literature from multiple domains. This synthesis approach is especially valuable at the beginning of a project, laying the groundwork for further empirical investigation or even a meta-analysis.

A key component of SLRs is the formulation of a clearly defined research question (RQ) that guides the review process. Once the RQ is established, inclusion and exclusion criteria must be specified to determine the relevance of sources [44]. This methodological precision contrasts with narrative reviews, which are often more interpretive, aiming to “tell a story” [63] through selected literature deemed most relevant by the author. Narrative reviews typically follow a top-down approach, starting with specific theories or key studies.

While both narrative and systematic reviews have their place in academia, Burgers et al. [31] argue that SLRs are particularly well-suited for interdisciplinary reviews due to their bottom-up approach, which allows a more comprehensive and unbiased inclusion of literature.

To support scholars in conducting literature reviews, several guidelines have been proposed. Cooper [87] introduced a foundational model comprising five steps: problem formulation, data collection, evaluation, analysis, and presentation. This model, though originally developed for psychology, has influenced review practices across disciplines such as software engineering [88], health sciences [89], management [90], and information systems [91].

Later refinements have expanded Cooper’s model into a six-step process: (1) formulating the problem, (2) searching literature, (3) screening for inclusion, (4) assessing quality, (5) extracting data, and (6) analyzing and synthesizing findings [92]. Further innovations, such as the citation network-based approach proposed by Kosztyán et al. [2], enhance the systematic identification of relevant studies.

In sum, the structure and methodology of an LRP can provide insights into its type. Whether descriptive, explanatory, or theory-testing, each type serves a unique function in advancing academic knowledge.

2.5. Structure of a Literature Review

Literature review papers (LRPs) can be structured in various ways, and numerous recommendations have been proposed by scholars to guide researchers in their organization [26]. Two primary structures are commonly identified in the literature: (1) the classical structure and (2) the IMRAD-related structure.

In the classical structure, the LRP closely resembles a traditional research paper that includes a distinct literature review section. This format is often used in studies applying mixed methods to answer research questions, test hypotheses, or develop new theoretical frameworks.

Conversely, in the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) structure, the literature review is integrated into the introduction or conceptual background section, rather than being presented as a standalone part. The introduction typically includes the background, existing knowledge, literature gaps, research aims, and target audience, ideally presented through a clear narrative. The methodology may also be introduced here or outlined in a separate section.

A key feature of both structures is the use of tables and figures to synthesize and present large volumes of information. Common templates include tables with columns for authors, publication year, geographic focus, and sample size, while rows represent the reviewed studies. Alternative formats group studies by theme, region, or methodology. Long tables can be included as appendices [93].

Regardless of structure, the goal is to synthesize information clearly and concisely, enabling readers to compare findings across studies. Presentation choices—whether through tables, figures, or narrative—depend on the LRP’s aim, research scope, and intended audience. Striking a balance between depth for experts and accessibility for newcomers remains a central challenge, and final structural decisions ultimately rest with the authors.

2.6. Methodology and Process of a Literature Review

One of the most frequently criticized aspects of literature review papers (LRPs) is the lack of explicit methodological reporting. Many LRPs either omit a methods section entirely or include only a brief description, often because the literature is “drawn” from a broad body of existing publications. This lack of transparency undermines the replicability, credibility, and academic rigor of the review process. To address this limitation, several researchers have proposed structured methods and guidelines to support authors in developing methodologically sound LRPs.

Wee [26] strongly advocates for methodological transparency in LRPs. Authors, he argues, should clearly report the methodology used to select and analyze the source material. If the goal is to cover the core literature in a specific domain, reviewers should state which databases were searched (e.g., Web of Science, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, TRID), the search strategy used, keywords applied, and inclusion/exclusion criteria. Scheepers et al. [94], for example, provide a strong model of best practice, explicitly reporting on databases searched, languages included, time frames, and other key methodological decisions.

Equally important is defining the scope and boundaries of the review. Authors should explain the rationale behind choices such as limiting the review to post-1998 literature (e.g., due to earlier reviews or the emergence of new methods) or restricting the review to specific countries or contexts where the local setting may influence findings. If non-English literature is included, this should be noted explicitly.

Snowballing—using citations within or from relevant papers—is a common practice in LRPs. Jalali and Wohlin [95] differentiate between forward snowballing (identifying newer works citing a given paper) and backward snowballing (checking references within a paper). While this technique is useful, it should be explicitly documented to maintain methodological transparency.

In cases where more subjective selection methods are used—such as expert knowledge, brainstorming sessions, or thematic relevance—authors must still provide a methodological rationale. A clear explanation of the selection process, along with commentary on its strengths and limitations, is crucial. Wee [26] suggests that while there is no strict rule on the number of papers to include, most LRPs should cover at least 30 studies and generally not exceed 100, especially in focused fields like transport studies. When the volume of relevant literature is too large, stratified sampling methods may be used, guided by criteria such as citation impact, recency, regional focus, or theoretical contribution.

Authors should also avoid certain analytical pitfalls. For example, instead of averaging quantitative results across studies, it is preferable to present individual findings alongside the number of cases and discuss patterns qualitatively. Moreover, the distinction between the original authors’ interpretations and the LRP authors’ interpretations must be made clear. Speculative explanations of trends are acceptable if they are explicitly identified as such and offer insights that may inspire future research.

To systematize the review process, Durach et al. [96] synthesized six common steps in systematic literature reviews (SLRs), which remain broadly applicable across disciplines. Similarly, Snyder [54] proposed a four-phase approach: (1) design, (2) conduct, (3) analysis, and (4) structuring and writing. Xiao and Watson [56] outlined three main stages—planning, conducting, and reporting—each with detailed sub-steps. Although these models differ slightly, they reflect a shared commitment to procedural rigor and clarity.

Sauer [24] evaluated 13 existing guidelines for SLRs and observed four distinct approaches to structuring the review process. One of the earliest models, developed by Tranfield et al. [97], proposed three stages: planning, conducting, and reporting. Building on this, Kraus et al. [69] proposed a four-step model, and Paul et al. [98] introduced the SPAR-4-SLR protocol, a three-stage process with six sub-steps and 14 reporting actions based on PRISMA guidelines [99,100].

The SPAR-4-SLR protocol offers a comprehensive checklist covering the initial literature gathering phase, which accounts for most of its reporting items. Although constrained by word limits in its original presentation, the protocol has proven especially useful for PhD students and early-career researchers aiming to enhance the reliability and reproducibility of their SLRs.

Recognizing the variety of review types, Snyder [54] distinguished between systematic, semi-systematic, and integrative (or critical) reviews. Each type serves a different purpose: quantitative synthesis of evidence, overview of a field’s evolution, or critique and reconceptualization of existing perspectives. Authors should clearly position their work within one of these typologies to clarify their objectives and methodological choices.

Sauer [24] adopted Snyder’s [54] four generic steps—design, conduct, analysis, and writing—to guide the development of integrative reviews. The initial three steps focus on planning and execution, while the final stage emphasizes clarity in communicating the review’s contribution. To conduct the review, Sauer began with a selection of 13 foundational papers, such as those by Tranfield et al. [97] and Durach et al. [96], and used citation tracking to expand the sample. The selection criteria required papers to provide original methodological guidance and be relevant to the management domain.

Sauer ultimately proposed a seven-step framework, extending the traditional six steps of review methodology by adding a seventh: steps critical to publication. This final step addresses a key gap in the literature by guiding authors on how to tailor their work for successful peer-reviewed publication.

Depending on the type of LRP and the study’s objectives, numerous other researchers have contributed to the development of literature review methodologies and guidelines [31,51,100,101,102,103,104].

Given the diversity of research fields and approaches, the literature review landscape has become increasingly complex. As such, we propose the GARP4LR as a general framework applicable across disciplines. This framework addresses the literature review process by focusing on three core components: (1) typologies of literature reviews, (2) review process models and guidelines, and (3) publication networks.

This structured approach not only enhances the transparency and rigor of LRPs but also helps researchers better position their work within the evolving academic discourse.

2.7. Relevance, Challenge and Value of a Literature Review

Value: Writing a literature review offers significant value to researchers. It requires extensive reading, enabling a deep understanding of the chosen field. This process not only enhances the author’s expertise but can also lead to highly cited publications, contributing to academic reputation. As a largely independent activity, it requires no primary data collection, making it accessible with just literature sources [26]. Literature reviews also serve dual purposes in both research and teaching. A high-quality literature review should offer clear interpretations and a strong central message. Systematic literature reviews (SLRs), in particular, help condense knowledge, guide future research, and support theory development [24,105]. They also reveal how disciplines conceptualize the same construct differently, which is especially valuable for interdisciplinary research [31]. This aligns with the goal of interdisciplinary studies—to connect multiple perspectives and address complex issues holistically [27]. Moreover, conducting literature reviews helps researchers synthesize knowledge, build theory, and navigate emerging domains. As emphasized by Kosztyán et al. [2], well-crafted reviews not only contribute new insights but also stimulate future research, thereby validating and extending their impact [52,106].

Relevance: The relevance of a literature review (LR) lies in its ability to engage researchers, scholars, and students in disciplinary or interdisciplinary inquiry, helping them address social, political, economic, and academic challenges while gaining insights that transcend specific fields [27]. While review papers may sometimes be perceived as less valuable than traditional research articles due to a lack of “original research,” this perception can be misleading. As Wee [26] argues, a well-crafted review paper can offer more value to the academic community than a narrowly focused empirical study, especially when it critically analyzes, synthesizes, and advances knowledge in a field. A common reason for undervaluing literature review papers (LRPs) is the absence of a standard structure, which may discourage scholars from attempting them. Additionally, confusion between general overview papers and critical review papers contributes to this misconception. Unlike overview papers, which summarize existing knowledge, critical reviews must add value through synthesis, critique, or innovation [26].

LRPs can take various forms—conceptual, theoretical, methodological, empirical, or practice-based—and may propose new frameworks or integrate diverse perspectives. In today’s fast-paced academic environment, where knowledge spreads rapidly across disciplines, LRPs are more essential than ever for identifying gaps and guiding future research [2].

Challenge: Writing a literature review paper (LRP) can be more challenging than producing a traditional research paper for several key reasons. First, the risk of redundancy is high. A similar review may already exist, covering the same scope. However, new reviews can still add value by adopting a different perspective—such as focusing on methodology rather than empirical findings—or by refining or expanding the scope to cover underexplored areas. Second, writing a high-quality LRP is time-intensive. It requires extensive reading, selection, and synthesis of relevant literature. Unlike a standard empirical paper, LRPs demand deeper engagement with broader bodies of work, making the writing process more complex. A strong LRP should add value throughout the paper, not just in the conclusion [26]. Third, selecting a suitable methodology is a major challenge. The process is influenced by the LRP’s type and purpose. Researchers must navigate an overwhelming volume of literature and often struggle to apply systematic review protocols effectively [98]. Existing guidelines are fragmented, focusing on different aspects of the process without offering a cohesive model [24,54,84]. As a result, authors must interpret and reconcile inconsistencies themselves. Fourth, interdisciplinary literature reviews add complexity due to varying definitions, methods, and reporting standards across disciplines. Challenges include developing shared terminology and adapting to different disciplinary cultures, which may affect publishing norms and expectations [27,107]. Finally, publishing LRPs can be more difficult due to concerns about validity, comparability, and replicability. According to Kosztyán et al. [2], only specific LRP types—such as umbrella reviews, meta-analyses, and theory development papers—frequently appear in top-tier journals. Despite the introduction of the PRISMA guidelines in 2009, adherence remains inconsistent. Rigorous methodology, especially meta-analysis, is often required for acceptance in prestigious journals. This study proposes an alternative structure for general LRPs to improve clarity, rigor, and accessibility.

2.8. Publication of a Literature Review: Challenge and Recommendations

Publishing a literature review paper (LRP) is particularly challenging. Before writing, it is essential to identify a suitable target journal. This can be done by selecting a first-choice journal or reviewing seed (foundational) or umbrella articles to determine a relevant publishing niche. For instance, many top transportation journals—such as Transportation Research Part A or B—rarely accept LRPs, except in exceptional cases. It is therefore crucial to review previously published LRPs in the target journal to understand its scope, format, and expectations.

Word limits are another constraint. Many journals impose strict length restrictions, which can be especially difficult for LRPs due to the extensive content involved. Reviewers often ask for additional material but rarely indicate what to remove. Including clear conclusions and the paper’s value in the abstract is recommended.

Common reasons for LRP rejection include (1) lack of added value, where the paper is more of a general overview than a critical review; (2) unclear or unmet objectives; and (3) a submission that resembles an early draft—lacking structure, depth, and rigor. Given rising rejection rates across academic journals, authors must ensure their LRP is fully developed, methodologically sound, and aligned with the journal’s scope and standards [26].

2.9. Summary of the Literature

A summary of the literature on how to write a literature review following a particular method is included under Section 3.2.2. (Also see

Table A1. Summary of literature review and content analysis results, n = 115 RP (Table 11 continued).

Elsevier
Author(s), Pub Year, Type of Article. Sample Size Journal.	Objective	Type of Lit Review Identified	Methodology	Paper Collection Database(s)	Software Used	Lit Review Guidelines Proposed	Key Findings	Suggestions/Recommendations	Research Gaps	Limitations	Score
[41] (TA): Protocol. (SS): Delphi study, minimum 25 responses per round. (J): Contemporary Clinical Trials.	To describe the development process for a reporting guideline for intervention fidelity in non-drug, non-surgical trials (ReFiND).	Scoping Review (as part of the guideline development).	Six-stage guideline development process including a scoping review, a Delphi study, and a consensus meeting, following EQUATOR and ACCORD guidelines.	For the scoping review: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, CENTRAL, AMED.	Qualtrics, DeepL Translator, Covidence.	Yes, this paper is a protocol to develop the ReFiND reporting guideline for intervention fidelity.	Reporting of intervention fidelity in non-drug trials is inadequate, limiting transparency and reproducibility. Existing fidelity guidance documents vary and lack robust, consensus-based development methods.	The future ReFiND guideline will provide a consensus-based set of items to improve fidelity reporting.	No international, consensus-based reporting guideline for fidelity in non-drug, non-surgical interventions currently exists.	This is a protocol, so it describes planned work rather than completed research with limitations.	A+++
[94] (TA): Methodological Guidance/Research Article. (SS): initial 300,000 articles, refined to ~2300, and screened them. No final number. (J): Heliyon/	To enhance the systematic literature review (SLR) method by proposing a ‘double-stage SLR’ to reduce bias, identify gaps, and formulate research questions more effectively.	SLR of methodological and review articles.	Proposes a new framework (‘DDA in SLR’) based on a critical analysis of existing SLR approaches and the Double Diamond Design Approach.	Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, Google.	CADIMA.	Yes, proposes the ‘double-stage SLR’ or ‘Double Diamond Approach (DDA) in SLR’.	Current SLR frameworks often lack guidance on quantifying literature volume for gap identification and formulating research questions, leading to potential bias.	The DDA in SLR involves two stages: (1) reviewing existing review literature to identify gaps and formulate research questions, and (2) reviewing empirical literature to answer those questions and meet review objectives.	Existing SLR methods are unclear on how to quantify literature needed to formulate research questions or develop a search strategy.	This approach requires more time and effort432. The authors’ own search was limited to a few online databases and English-language papers, and excluded books/book chapters.	A+++
Emerald A
Author(s), Pub Year, Type of Article, (SS) & (J)	Objective	Type of Lit Review Identified	Methodology	Paper Collection Database(s)	Software Used	Lit Review Guidelines Proposed	Key Findings	Suggestions/Recommendations	Research Gaps	Limitations	Score
Virginia Bodolica, Martin Spraggon. (2018) (TA): Conceptual paper. (SS): N/A. (J): Management Decision.	To provide useful guidelines to prospective authors for generating influential literature review articles by uncovering key requirements for expanding their reach.	Discusses literature review articles in general, and mentions systematic reviews as a foundation for its proposed process.	Conceptual paper developing an end-to-end process based on the authors’ experience and a scrutiny of review papers in major management journals.	ABI/INFORM, Business Source Premier, JSTOR, Emerald, PsycINFO, ProQuest, Web of Science, and Scopus are mentioned as key databases for conducting reviews.	Not mentioned.	Proposes an end-to-end process with two phases (Writing, Publishing) and seven steps: Exploring the topic, Searching/screening, Assessment/selection, Analysis/synthesis, Structuring/drafting, Journal submission/publication, and Post-publication diffusion.	Identifies and debunks several popular misconceptions about literature reviews (e.g., they are easier to publish, good for early-career researchers). An impactful review typically has five sections: introduction, methods/framework, findings, future research, and conclusion.	Choose a topic with high growth potential. Use scientific methods of research synthesis. Select an appropriate journal by carefully checking its scope228. Be active in post-publication diffusion.	The paper addresses the need for clear guidelines on how to produce influential, rigorous, and relevant review articles, which is a complex and challenging endeavor.	The paper is conceptual and based on the authors’ experience and observations, not a systematic empirical study of review articles.	A+++
Jo Tunnard. (2004) (TA): Descriptive article. (SS): Three reviews discussed; one analyzed 22 studies. (J): Journal of Integrated Care.	To describe the “RiP Approach” for producing literature reviews for social care practitioners and managers, focusing on how to write reviews that can influence practice.	Distinguishes between “systematic reviews” and “expert reviews”. The RiP approach is a type of expert review.	A descriptive account based on the author’s experience writing three literature review booklets for Research in Practice (RiP).	Mentions various databases including NCB Library Database, Caredata, British Library, NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and King’s Fund.	Not mentioned.	Describes the “RiP Approach,” which emphasizes: a specific audience (practitioners), breadth (including non-research sources), quality standards (transparency and comprehensiveness), and a clear framework (impact and interventions).	The RiP approach produces “expert reviews” useful for practitioners by being tailored to their needs, including broad information, and explicitly linking findings to practice. User feedback has been positive.	When writing for practitioners, keep the audience in mind, link findings to practice guidelines, and make references more helpful by grouping and summarizing them. Seek robust feedback before publication.	The paper implicitly points to a need for literature reviews that are specifically designed to be accessible and useful for practitioners, as opposed to purely academic or highly restrictive systematic reviews.	Feedback on the RiP reviews is anecdotal only 140. A key practical limitation is balancing comprehensiveness with a small budget.	A+++
GoogleScholar
Author(s), Pub Year, Type of Article, (SS) & (J)	Objective	Type of Lit Review Identified	Methodology	Paper Collection Database(s)	Software Used	Lit Review Guidelines Proposed	Key Findings	Suggestions/Recommendations	Research Gaps	Limitations	Score
[85] (TA): Outcome Research Design/Conceptual Framework. (SS): heuristic example 47 articles. (J): Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation.	To provide a framework for using discourse analysis to review literature, a process called Discourse Analysis-Based Research Synthesis (DARS).	Discourse Analysis-Based Research Synthesis (DARS)59. Also lists 17 other qualitative analysis techniques for literature reviews.	Proposes a six-stage DARS process based on Gee’s Discourse Analysis, using a heuristic example.	Not specified for the heuristic example, but involved multiple search phases, including personal communications.	Recommends Mendeley for organization and QDA Miner for analysis.	Proposes a six-stage DARS process 67. Identifies 10 myths about literature reviews to avoid.	The literature review is a critical but under-guided part of counseling research. Gee’s Discourse Analysis provides a useful theoretical framework for analyzing literature.	Counselor researchers should use DARS and other qualitative analysis approaches to improve rigor. Counselor education programs should teach these concepts.	Scant guidance exists on how to formally analyze and interpret selected literature.	Not stated, as it is a “how-to” paper.	A+++
Indunil Karunarathna et al.(n.d.). (TA): Guide/Review. (SS): N/A. (J): UVA CLINICAL RESEARCH/RESEARCH METHODOLOGY/LITERATURE REVIEW.	To provide a comprehensive guide to conducting a literature review with practical steps and advice.	Traditional/narrative review, systematic literature review (SLR), mini-review vs. full review, descriptive vs. integrative review	Comprehensive method	Recommends PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science, JSTOR, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, etc.	Recommends Mendeley, Zotero, or EndNote.	Proposes “10 rules for writing an effective literature review” and a 7-step process for traditional/narrative reviews	Literature reviews are crucial for synthesizing knowledge, but challenging for new researchers. SLRs are methodical and use explicit criteria to minimize bias.	Use a systematic approach with a well-defined topic. Go beyond summarizing to critically analyze literature. Organize the review logically and seek feedback.	N/A—Guide. Notes that reviews help identify gaps.	N/A	A+++
Springer NatureLink
Author(s), Pub Year, Type of Article, (SS) & (J)	Objective	Type of Lit Review Identified	Methodology	Paper Collection Database(s)	Software Used	Lit Review Guidelines Proposed	Key Findings	Suggestions/Recommendations	Research Gaps	Limitations	Score
[33] (TA): Methodology Paper. (SS): N/A. (J): Systematic Reviews.	To describe a scoping review methodology that integrates Indigenous research methodologies with the Arksey and O’Malley framework.	Proposes a methodology for an Indigenous-informed scoping review.	A hybrid approach weaving Indigenous methodologies (e.g., Anishinaabe framework) into a Western method (Arksey & O’Malley’s scoping review framework). Guided by an advisory circle of Indigenous Knowledge Keepers.	Mentions conducting searches in electronic databases, hand-searches, and Google.	Not specified.	Yes, proposes an 8-stage model for conducting an Indigenous-informed scoping review, expanding on Arksey & O’Malley’s 5 stages.	An Indigenous approach requires meaningful Indigenous representation and perspectives throughout the research process286. Engagement and listening should be embedded throughout, not as an optional stage.	Researchers can use this 8-stage methodology to conduct reviews that are credible and useful for both Indigenous communities and academia.	Addresses the need for review methodologies that are relational, aligned with Indigenous knowledge, and led by Indigenous people.	The authors describe challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic impacting their process.	A+++
[24] (TA): Review Paper/Guideline Paper. (SS): 13 guideline papers. (J): Review of Managerial Science.	To offer an integrative review of SLR guidelines and propose a refined process model (6 steps, 14 decisions) to guide researchers.	Integrative Literature Review (of guidelines for Systematic/Structured Literature Reviews (SLR))	Integrative literature review methodology. Coded 13 core SLR guideline papers against Durach et al.’s (2017) six steps and inductively derived 14 key decisions.	N/A (started with core articles and used citation chasing).	Recommends MAXQDA and NVivo for data extraction.	Yes, proposes a refined SLR process model with 6 steps and 14 decisions.	Existing SLR guidelines are scattered and focus on early stages (search, selection), with less guidance on later stages (synthesis, reporting).	Provides a detailed 6-step, 14-decision framework to guide the SLR process68. Recommends specific tools (e.g., MAXQDA) and approaches (e.g., concept-centric synthesis).	Lack of a comprehensive and detailed SLR process model that guides researchers through all stages, especially synthesis and reporting.	The review is integrative, not systematic, and the sample of guidelines is not exhaustive. Examples are sometimes drawn from a specific management subfield.	A+++
[71] (TA): Review Article (proposing guidelines). (SS): 50 articles/documents. (J): Environmental Science and Pollution Research.	To outline a clear guideline (GuFSyADD) for developing a systematic literature review (SLR) for studies related to climate change adaptation.	Proposes guidelines for Systematic Literature Review (SLR). The paper itself is a form of literature review of methodological articles.	Three-stage literature search and screening process to identify methodological articles for developing the guideline. The search involved five databases and manual techniques.	Main: Scopus, Web of Science, Science Direct. Supporting: Google Scholar, Dimensions.ai.	Not specified.	Yes, proposes the GuFSyADD guidelines with six steps: (1) Be guided by a protocol/standard, (2) Formulate review questions, (3) Use systematic searching, (4) Appraise quality, (5) Extract and analyze data, (6) Demonstrate data.	SLR methodology guidelines for climate change adaptation studies are lacking. Established protocols like PRISMA are often tailored to medical fields and may need adaptation33. ROSES is a more suitable standard for environmental science.	Researchers should use the proposed GuFSyADD guidelines for organized, transparent, and replicable SLRs on climate change adaptation. Recommends using tools like PICOC for research questions and protocols like ROSES.	No specific methodology guideline for SLRs related to climate change adaptation existed prior to this paper.	The paper does not list its own limitations.	A+++
[68] (TA): Methodology Paper. (SS): 365 articles to create 46 syntheses. (J): BMC Medical Research Methodology.	To describe the “Modular Literature Review,” a novel method to support priority-setting in health policy when many interventions are relevant.	Proposes the Modular Literature Review and compares it to systematic reviews, scoping reviews, overviews of reviews, and rapid reviews.	A modular PICOS framework was used for searching five databases. The Intervention module varied while others were constant. Employed single-reviewer screening and data extraction with quality control measures	MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane databases (CDSR, CENTRAL), CINAHL	RefWorks, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Word	Yes, proposes the Modular Literature Review method.	The method successfully reviewed 46 interventions within 12 months. It can address multiple research questions simultaneously while preserving systematic principles.	The method can inform research agendas by providing a multi-disciplinary landscape view and identifying gaps.	An unmet need for review methods to support priority-setting when a wide variety of interventions exist.	Single-reviewer screening and data extraction (though with quality control) due to time constraints. Exclusion of non-English articles.	A+++
Chris Cooper, Andrew Booth, et al. (2018), (TA): Literature Review. (SS): 9 guidance documents and an unspecified number of supporting studies. (J): BMC Medical Research Methodology.	To determine if a shared model of the literature searching process exists across systematic review guidance documents.	A literature review of guidance documents for various types of systematic reviews.	Review of two literature types: nine purposively selected guidance documents and supporting studies identified via pearl growing, citation chasing, and a PubMed search. Key stages were identified by consensus.	PubMed (for supporting studies).	Not specified.	No, but it defines a shared 8-stage model of the literature searching process found in existing guidance.	An 8-stage model of literature searching is consistently reported in guidance documents, suggesting a shared tacit model. Key stages are comprehensive, transparent, and reproducible searches to minimize bias.	Further research is needed to determine if the same search process is suitable for all types of systematic reviews (e.g., qualitative vs. effectiveness).	The need for comprehensive searches is less certain for qualitative reviews. The concept of “when to stop searching” needs more study.	The review focused on guidance from Europe and Australia. The review of supporting studies was not a full systematic review itself.	A+++
Taylor & Francis
Author(s), Pub Year, Type of Article, (SS) & (J)	Objective	Type of Lit Review Identified	Methodology	Paper Collection Database(s)	Software Used	Lit Review Guidelines Proposed	Key Findings	Suggestions/Recommendations	Research Gaps	Limitations	Score
[44] (TA): Research/Pedagogical Article. (SS): Not applicable. (J): Teaching of Psychology.	To present an integrated, meta-analytic model for teaching undergraduate students how to write psychological literature reviews.	Discusses literature reviews in the context of empirical reports and as standalone review articles.	Describes an instructional program for a sophomore-level research methods course. The program uses concepts from meta-analysis to teach writing skills.	Mentions Psychological Abstracts and PsycFirst as reference materials for students.	Not specified.	Proposes a meta-analytic model for teaching literature review writing. It breaks the process into 5 tasks: (1) focusing topics, (2) systematically coding information, (3) developing common measures for outcomes, (4) searching for moderator variables, and (5) evaluating research quality.	Students often struggle with writing literature reviews, failing to integrate information and instead summarizing articles sequentially384385. Meta-analysis provides a clear model for teaching because its techniques address common student problems like selecting topics, analyzing details, synthesizing findings, and evaluating articles.	This model provides specific advantages by identifying required skills, clarifying criteria for good reviews, and clarifying instructional sequences in curricula. The model integrates writing with critical thinking.	No comparable course or manual exists for instructing students to write review articles, unlike for empirical reports. Psychology instructors may lack a model to guide their writing instruction.	Some students still had weaknesses, such as reporting comparisons that were not relevant to their primary research questions.	A+++
Wiley
Author(s), Pub Year, Type of Article, (SS) & (J)	Objective	Type of Lit Review Identified	Methodology	Paper Collection Database(s)	Software Used	Lit Review Guidelines Proposed	Key Findings	Suggestions/Recommendations	Research Gaps	Limitations	Score
[96] (TA): Technical Note/Methodological Paper. (SS): 133 SLRs examined. (J): Journal of Business Logistics.	To propose a new paradigm and guidelines for conducting systematic literature reviews (SLRs) in Supply Chain Management (SCM) that account for the field’s idiosyncrasies.	Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs).	Critical examination of 133 SCM-related SLRs to identify challenges, combined with a synthesis of general SLR guidelines, to propose a new paradigm	For their initial review: Business Source Complete and Web of Science Core Collection.	N/A	Proposes a new 6-step paradigm for SCM SLRs focused on refining theory by analyzing studies based on an initial theoretical framework and accounting for study artifacts (e.g., unit of analysis, context)	SLRs in SCM have had limited impact due to six field-specific idiosyncrasies, such as permeable theoretical boundaries, varying units of analysis, and diverse construct operationalization.	SCM SLRs should aim to refine theory by explaining contingent causalities (“what works for whom, how, and under what circumstances”). Researchers must be aware of and mitigate potential biases.	The SCM field lacks a cumulative body of knowledge due to an absence of replication studies and a proliferation of measurement scales.	The paradigm is developed for SCM but may be useful for adjacent management disciplines.	A+++
Nature Portfolio
Author(s), Pub Year, Type of Article, (SS) & (J)	Objective	Type of Lit Review Identified	Methodology	Paper Collection Database(s)	Software Used	Lit Review Guidelines Proposed	Key Findings	Suggestions/Recommendations	Research Gaps	Limitations	Score
N/A (Editorial. 2024). (T): Editorial (SS): N/A. (J): Nature Reviews Bioengineering (inferred).	To provide insights and guidance on how to craft a high-quality, comprehensive, and authoritative Review article.	Review articles.	N/A (provides advice).	Recommends using a range of sources, including literature databases and community-specific resources.	N/A	Proposes a step-by-step guide for writing a review, covering timeliness, finding a compelling angle, outlining, writing a critical discussion (not a list), and concluding with an outlook.	A good review should be timely, objective, balanced, and forward-thinking, synthesizing and critically evaluating research to identify new opportunities.	Aim for at least 30 relevant primary papers from the last 2–3 years. Use a narrative structure, compare and contrast findings, and employ visual elements like figures and tables to enhance clarity. Be mindful of citation diversity.	A review should identify open questions, controversies, and knowledge gaps to point toward future research directions.	This is a brief editorial from the perspective of one journal, not an exhaustive guide.	A+++

and

Table A2. Summary of content analysis results coding format n = 115 RP (Table 11 continued).

Elsevier

Author(s), Pub Year

Journal

Type of Article

(Ob)

(TLRI)

(M)

(SS)

(DB)

(S)

(PG)

(KF)

(R)

(RG)

(L)

Score

Miguel Alves Pereira et al., (2025)

Socio-Economic Planning Sciences

Integrative literature review18

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

A+

Nadia Di Paola et al., (2025)

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

Review article

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

A++

Gusenbauer, M., & Gauster, S.P. (2024)

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

Methodological Guidance/Methodological Review

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

A+++

Cantillo et al., (2024)

Aquaculture Reports

Two-step Systematic Literature Review

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

A+++

Schmidt, L., et al. (2023)

Z. Evid. Fortbild. Qual. Gesundh. wesen (ZEFQ)

Narrative Review

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

A+

Nowell, L., et al. (2022)

Social Sciences & Humanities Open

Methodological Reflection/Regular Article

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

A++

Paul, J., & Rialp Criado, A. (2020)

International Business Review

Methodological Guidance/Review

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

A+++

Snyder, H. (2019)

Journal of Business Research

Methodological Guidance/Overview

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

A+++

Prince Kwame Senyo et al., (2019)

International Journal of Information Management

Systematic literature review

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

A+++

Burgers et al., (2019)

Journal of Pragmatics

Methodological Guidance/Review

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

A+++

Isabel Ruiz-Perez, Dafina Petrova. (2019)

Med Clin (Barc)

Special article/Methodological review

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

A+++

Heidi R. Wright. (2019)

English for Specific Purposes

Research Article/Corpus Study

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

A+++

Peter LaPlaca et al., 2017)

Industrial Marketing Management

Article with guidelines/How-to guide

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

A+++

Barbara Kitchenham et al., (2010)

Information and Software Technology

Tertiary study (review of reviews)

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

A++

Emerald A

Author(s), Pub Year

Journal

Type of Article

(Ob)

(TLRI)

(M)

(SS)

(DB)

(S)

(PG)

(KF)

(R)

(RG)

(L)

Score

Stefan Seuring, Stefan Gold., (2012)

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Literature review

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

A+++

Jennifer Rowley, Frances Slack., (2004)

Management Research News

Guidance Article

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

N

N

A+++

GoogleScholar

Author(s), Pub Year

Journal

Type of Article

(Ob)

(TLRI)

(M)

(SS)

(DB)

(S)

(PG)

(KF)

(R)

(RG)

(L)

Score

Davi Nakano, Jorge Muniz Jr. (2018)

Production

Theoretical Essay/Guide98

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

A+++

Gerry L. Koons et al., (2019)

Annals of Biomedical Engineering

Guide181

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

A+++

Christina Cantero. (2019)

San José State University Writing Center

Guide/Handout

Y

Y

N

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

A+++

Nicole L. Stout et al., (2017)

PM&R

Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

N

Y

A++

Richard J. Torraco. (v)

Human Resource Development Review

Guide

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

A+++

Catherine L. Winchester. (2016)

Journal of Clinical Urology

Guide

Y

Y

N

N

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

A++

Priscilla Robinson, John Lowe. (2015)

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health (ANZJPH)

Editorial/Guide

Y

Y

N

N

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

A++

Daniel Strech, Neema Sofaer. (2012)

Journal of Medical Ethics

Methodology Paper

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

A+++

Lorna K Henderson et al. (2010)

Nephrology

Clinical Research/Guide

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

A+++

Alison Nightingale. (2009)

Surgery

Guide

Y

Y

N

N

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

A+++

Jeffrey W. Knop (n.s)

PS: Political Science & Politics (implied)

Guide/“How to” article

Y

Y

N

N

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

A+++

Richard J. Torraco. (2005)

Human Resource Development Review

Guide

Y

Y

N

N

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

A+++

Karen D. Kelly et al., (2001)

Annals of Emergency Medicine

Research Article

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

N

Y

A+++

Franklin L. Rosenfeldt et al., (2000)

Heart, Lung and Circulation

Guide

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

A++

Roy F. Baumeister and Mark R. Leary. (1997)

Review of General Psychology

Review Article/Guide

Y

Y

N

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

A+++

Springer NatureLink

Author(s), Pub Year

Journal

Type of Article

(Ob)

(TLRI)

(M)

(SS)

(DB)

(S)

(PG)

(KF)

(R)

(RG)

(L)

Score

Andréa Aparecida da Costa Mineiro et al. (2024)

Quality & Quantity

Systematic Literature Review

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

A+++

Nicolás Leutwyler et al., (2024)

Knowledge and Information Systems

Review

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

A++

Mahfooz Ahmed et al., (2024)

Knowledge and Information Systems

Regular Paper

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

A+++

Øyunn Syrstad Høydal. (2024)

Minerva

Essay/Conceptual Paper

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

A+++

Christina Strauss. (2024)

Management Review Quarterly

Literature Review

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

A++

H. Carrie Chen et al., (2024)

Advances in Health Sciences Education

Q&A Column/Abstract

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

A+++

José de la Torre-López et al., (2023)

Computing

Regular Paper (Survey)

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

A+++

Thomas Olsson et al., (2022)

Requirements Engineering

Original Article

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

A++

Dadi Ramesh, Suresh Kumar Sanampudi. (2022)

Artificial Intelligence Review

Systematic Literature Review

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

A++

Julian Andrés Diaz Tautiva et al., (2022)

Management Review Quarterly

Bibliometric Analysis

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

A+++

Zachary Munn et al., (2018)

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Guidance Article/Debate

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

N

A+++

Sarah Elaine Eaton, Katherine Crossman. (2018)

Interchange

Scoping Review

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

A++

Armen Yuri Gasparyan et al., (2011)

Rheumatology International

Review Article

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

A+++

Taylor & Francis

Author(s), Pub Year

Journal

Type of Article

(Ob)

(TLRI)

(M)

(SS)

(DB)

(S)

(PG)

(KF)

(R)

(RG)

(L)

Score

Lilian Hoffecker. (2020)

The Serials Librarian

Overview/Guidance Paper

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

A+++

Bill Matney. (2017)

Nordic Journal of Music Therapy

Overview/Review

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

N

A++

Bert van Wee & David Banister. (2015)

Transport Reviews

Guidance/How-to Article

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

A++

Sarah Catherine Walpole et al., (2015)

Medical Teacher

BEME Systematic Review432

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

A+

Andrew S. Denney & Richard Tewksbury. (2013)

Journal of Criminal Justice Education

Guidance/How-to Article

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

N

N

A+

Wiley

Author(s), Pub Year

Journal

Type of Article

(Ob)

(TLRI)

(M)

(SS)

(DB)

(S)

(PG)

(KF)

(R)

(RG)

(L)

Score

Berdanier & Lenart. (2021)

Workbook by IEEE/John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Workbook Chapters

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

A+

Mohammad Jahanzeb Khan, Eddie Oczkowski. (2021)

International Journal of Auditing139

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

A++

of Appendix A).

In the next section, we will describe the research methodology, the data analysis process and the final design of the Generally Accepted Research Protocol for Literature Review (GARP Framework).

3. Methodology

The research is divided into two parts: Part (1), a general literature review (see Section 2); and Part (2), a conceptual framework for the Generally Accepted Research Protocol (GARP) supported by a semi-systematic review. In the second part, we used a mixed method combining descriptive analysis and semi-qualitative content analysis following the GARP framework (original method developed by the authors). This framework is based on the authors’ perspective of how a literature review should be written and follows various guidelines such as PRISMA [99], SIMILAR [2], AMSTAR, FLAVIA-LCT), DDA (, PICO-C, RiP), DARS CONSORT [108], GRADE, ReFIND [41], SPAR-4-SLR [98], SAR4R [109], Five C’s and Six W’s [47], TEMAC, GuFSyADD and ILRP mong others (see table in Section 3.2.2). We focus on peer-reviewed research articles and review articles from six prestigious academic publishing houses (Elsevier, Emerald, Nature Portfolio, Springer Nature & Link, Taylor & Francis, and Wiley) and one supporting database (Google Scholar) published between 1999 and March 2025. The data were collected online from the respective publishers’ websites using a keywords clustering method (KCM). We conducted a content analysis on the collected papers (n = 2323), and a final sample of n = 115 papers was analyzed to design the GARP framework for literature review described in Section 4.1. The papers were analyzed using a combination of several tools: MS Excel & Word, Windows 10 File Explorer, Mendeley, Adobe Acrobat, Foxit PhantomPDF, and a Large Language Model webware (NotebookLM). However, most of our research phases (4) and steps (24) were completed manually for verification and validation (see Section 4.1). Our research process follows some of the guidelines recommended by the authors cited above, especially Kosztyán et al. [2], Xiao and Watson [61], Wee [26], Lim et al. [5], and Sauer [24], who used a predefined guideline and provided a checklist and recommendations for writing a literature review, and Paré et al. [52], Gusenbauer [1], Schmidt et al. [29], and Buetow [62], who respectively used MS Excel and VOSviewer and suggested the use of special software and AI-enabled tools to support the search and analysis of papers.

Note: We follow the process of previous studies, not the exact steps, because our main goal is to design an alternative universal framework for conducting a literature review, and because most of the existing models were designed for a specific discipline and emphasize a particular step (or steps) of writing a literature review (e.g., searching process, exclusion and inclusion criteria, qualitative or quantitative or mixed analysis, etc.). see Figure 1.

3.1. Data Collection and Sample Selection Process (Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria)

The data was collected on seven (7) databases manually and via Mendeley. We follow the exact same collection process for each of the databases (online platforms). First, we selected three (3) keyword groups: (1) “Literature review”; (2) “Literature review, conceptual framework, Research guideline”; and (3) “How to write a Literature review”. Second, we search for relevant papers using each keyword group individually, following two steps: (1) a non-screening step, where we collected papers without screening for disciplines but by focusing on the title and/or abstract of the paper, and (2) screening steps, where we search for papers by screening each of the studied disciplines individually and/or combined. For both steps, we screen for papers by year following the research period (1999–2025 March) selected for this study, and for each year, we manually screen for relevant papers on the first ten (10) result pages, taking into account the scope of the study as listed in Table 1. And third, we collected the papers by adding them to a reference manager (Mendeley) and a file explorer folder. We repeat the above process on each of the seven (7) databases. It is important to note that we only focus on open-access peer-reviewed research articles and review articles without taking into account the number of citations or the journal ranking to collect papers. We also only search for articles published in the English language. A total of n = 2405 articles were collected and processed into five (5) distinct sample sizes: NPAD, NPAE, IP (Niche), SP, RP (Seed), before reaching a final sample size of n = 115 articles used as a foundation and support of the GARP framework developed in this study (see figure in Section 4.1). We collected the articles following the keyword clustering method (KCM) described in Figure 2 and processed (Cleaned and Analyzed) the collected papers following the inclusion and exclusion criteria and parameters described in Figure 2 and Table 1,

Table 2. Summary of criteria selected for papers collection.

Criteria for Papers Collection
Step 1	(1) Open Access (2) Peer-reviewed (3) Research articles and Review articles (4) Related to “How to write a literature review”, regardless of the selected disciplines (5) All published in English
Step 2	(1) Open Access (2) Peer-reviewed (3) Research articles and Review articles (4) Related to any of our selected disciplines (see step 3 of Figure 2 and Table 1) (5) About a Literature review or papers applying a new or old LR method on a topic linked to the selected disciplines (6) All published in English

and

Table 3. Summary of parameters, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and code for data collection, processing and semi-qualitative content analysis.

Data Processing Parameters and Criteria (Initial Sample Size n = 2405)	Content Analysis
	Code	Extracted Items
Exclusion Criteria (P1) All articles not related to the scope (Discipline and subject of interest) of the study were excluded (see Table 1).	(As)	Authors
	(PY)	Publication Year
	(TA)	Type of Article
	(D)	Discipline
Collection Criteria Peer-reviewed research article and review article from seven (7) databases (6 prestigious publishers and Google Scholar). All Open Access articles published in English (see Figure 1).	(J)	Journal
	(P)	Publisher
	TLRI	Type of Literature Review Identified
	(M)	Methodology
	(SS) or (CA)	Sample Size or Core Articles
	(SU)	Software used
Inclusion Criteria Articles were included by matching at least three (3) of the following parameters: (P1): Paper related to this study subject of interest is limited in Table 1. (P2): Guideline paper related to the scope of the study and/or proposing a new framework. (P3): Practical paper applying existing guideline (framework) or methodology (P4): Mixed research combining both (P2) and (P3). (P5): Paper containing at least one figure and one table (except those matching the topic of the present study). (P5): Paper with a methodology section and a clear structure. (P6): Paper listing and/or defining the different types of literature review (e.g., [2]). (P7): Paper proposing a checklist, a step-by-step guideline, or a chronological framework on how to write a literature review article (e.g., [56]). (P8): Chosen by the independent reviewer (Co-authors) and corresponding author (e.g., [26]).	(DB)	Databases Used
	(PG)	Proposed Guideline or Framework
	(R)	Recommendation
	(RG)	Research Gaps
	(L)	Limitations
	(A, B, C)	Qualitative Score of the paper
	(Y)	Yes
	(N)	No
	(T)	Theory
	(IC)	Inclusion Criteria
	(SP)	Selected Paper
	(RP)	Reported Paper
	(NPAE)	Number of Paper After Duplicate
	(NPAE)	Number of Paper After Exclusion
	(IP)	Included Paper
	(SA)	Size of the Article
	(P)	Parameters
	(O)	Optional
	(C)	Compulsory
	(Ob)	(Objective)
	(KF)	Key Findings
	(Final Sample Size n = 115)

. Figure 1 and Figure 2 and Table 2 below show a framework of the keyword clustering method process (roadmap), the research protocol, and a summary of the criteria (items) selected for data collection and sample selection.

The following Table 3 show Summary of parameters, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and code for data collection, processing and semi-qualitative content analysis.

3.2. Analysis

We conducted a descriptive and semi-qualitative content analysis on the collected papers following a predefined set of inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 3). The criteria were refined by two independent reviewers (authors J.D.N.N. and J.B.P.A.) to ensure transparency and replicability. Inter-rater agreement was calculated for the screening and coding phases using Cohen’s kappa; the obtained value of 0.87 indicated strong reliability, and any disagreements were resolved through consensus discussion with the third author (N.P.Z.).

After each screening step, the sample size was reduced and renamed as NAPD, NPAE, IP (Niche), SP, RP (Seed), and a final sample size of RP n = 115 articles was selected after a full cycle of five processes (description and analysis) (see Figure 1). We assessed the quality of a paper by focusing on three items: (1) methodology, (2) the types of literature review identified, and (3) the proposed guideline. All papers in our final sample are high-quality papers (A), and we differentiate each by adding a score (+++, ++, +) depending on the value of the above three items. Three additional items (Number of databases, software used, and sample size) were recorded but did not influence the final score (see the score column of the table in Section 3.2.2).

Inclusion criteria: articles were peer reviewed, published between 1999 and March 2025, written in English, and had a clear focus on literature review methodology, guidelines, typologies, or processes.

Exclusion criteria: editorials, commentaries, book reviews, articles not directly addressing review methodology, and studies without a reproducible methodological description.

The descriptive analysis tracked counts and trends across databases, disciplines, years, and review types, providing the quantitative backbone of the study. The semi-qualitative content analysis extracted methodological features, typologies, and proposed guidelines from the final seed articles. The integration of these two streams—quantitative distributions and qualitative thematic patterns—was achieved through a convergent meta inference process: the descriptive findings indicated the most prevalent review types and phases, while the qualitative synthesis revealed the essential steps that consistently appeared across high-quality guidelines. This integration directly informed the construction of the GARP 4LR framework, ensuring that the final protocol is both evidence-based and practically grounded.

To mitigate the absence of a medical sciences expert on the research team (see Section 7), we (a) specifically included and carefully analyzed systematic review guidelines from leading medical journals (e.g., those indexed in the Cochrane Library) and (b) cross validated our interpretations of medical literature review standards with two independent medical researchers, who confirmed that the extracted steps align with evidence-based medicine expectations. These measures increase the credibility of the multidisciplinary scope.

3.2.1. Descriptive Analysis

We conducted a descriptive analysis to show the change in sample size across all databases during the data processing phrase of this study. See

Table 4. Change in sample size across all databases (descriptive analysis).

Publishers (Databases)	NPAD	NPAE	IP (Niche)	SP	RP (Seed)	RP (Fruit)
Elsevier	957	354	213	143	93	22
Emerald	157	61	46	30	17	10
Google Scholar	149	135	96	87	62	36
Nature Portfolio	23	8	4	3	3	2
Springer Nature Link	628	375	214	148	94	27
Taylor & Francis	218	74	46	37	27	11
Wiley	191	40	14	15	11	7
Total	2323	1047	633	463	307	115

NPAD: Number of Papers After Duplicates; NPAE: Number of Papers After Exclusion; IP: Included Paper; SP: Selected Paper; RP: Reported Paper.

,

Table 5. Change in sample size across all discipline groups (descriptive analyses).

Discipline/(SS)	NPAD	NPAE	IP (Niche)	SP	RP (Seed)
AS (EE)	1061	414	290	209	73
MS (MH&HC)	464	301	146	110	121
SS&H (AFEM)	798	332	197	144	113
Total	2323	1047	633	463	307

AS (EE): Applied Science (Education & Engineering); MS (MH&HC): Medical Science (Mental Health & Health Care); SS&H (AFEM): Social Science & Humanities (Accounting, Finance, Economy and Management); (SS): sample size.

,

Table 6. Yearly change in sample size (descriptive analysis).

Year	NPAD	NPAE	IP (Niche)	SP	RP (Seed)
B1999	50	10	7	6	2
1999–2000	81	20	12	7	3
2001–2002	71	12	7	4	2
2003–2004	86	17	12	11	6
2005–2006	111	33	17	15	7
2007–2008	110	31	25	14	7
2009–2010	119	48	29	23	15
2011–2012	132	42	36	27	19
2013–2014	171	77	43	38	26
2015–2016	200	78	41	32	22
2017–2018	236	114	64	50	35
2019–2020	309	156	89	62	49
2021–2022	274	164	92	69	45
2023–2024	342	218	136	92	61
2025 (March)	31	27	23	13	8
Total	2323	1047	633	463	307

Note: B1999 articles are articles collected as supporting papers before applying screening during the search and collecting phase step.

,

Table 7. Change in sample size across research and literature review types (descriptive).

Type of Research/Review Articles	NPAD	NPAE	SP	RP (Seed)
AI Related R/LR	55	34	22	13
Bibliometric, Brief, Mini & Rapid R/LR	57	22	15	6
Comparative R/LR	6	4	2	1
Comprehensive R/LR	15	10	4	4
Critical R/LR	41	28	8	4
How to, What, Why & Guideline R/LR	530	179	166	167
Integrative R/LR	27	28	10	4
Literature Review (LR)	320	182	41	12
Mixed R/LR	393	60	45	37
Narrative R/LR	20	18	9	4
Qualitative, Quantitative & Case study R/LR	90	20	13	6
Scoping R/LR	42	52	17	5
Systematic R/LR	223	221	52	16
Theoretical & Conceptual Framework R/LR	346	117	33	23
Other R/LR	158	72	26	5
Total	2323	1047	463	307

Note: R/LR is the code for research article or literature review article.

,

Table 8. Change in sample size across all four (4) types of literature review (descriptive analysis).

Type of R-LR	IP (Niche)	SP	SP (Seed)
Conceptual Framework and Case Study R-LR	64	45	29
How to, What is, and Guideline R-LR	257	229	167
LR	214	122	72
Mixed R-LR	98	67	39
Total	633	463	307

,

Table 9. Change in sample size across two (2) types of articles (descriptive analysis).

Types of Articles	NPAE	IP (Niche)
Short Articles	171	98
Long Articles	876	535
Total	1047	633

Note: Short articles include papers with fewer than five pages, and long articles papers with fewer than 64 pages. Most short articles do not have figures or tables.

and

Table 10. Categorical distribution of guideline article from RP (seed) sample size (Descriptive).

Type of Literature Review	Bibliometric, Brief, Mini & Rapid R/LR	Comparative R/LR	Critical R/LR	How to & Guideline	Integrative R/LR	Literature Review (LR)	Mixed R/LR	Narrative R/LR	Case Study R/LR	Scoping R/LR	Systematic R/LR	Theoretical & Conceptual R/LR	Total
RP (Seed)	3	1	2	13	4	67	5	9	2	6	52	3	167

Note: This sample size is a categorical description of “How to, what is, and Guideline” articles from RP (seed) sample size. See Table 7 RP (seed) column six (6).

, and Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9 Below.

3.2.2. Semi-Qualitative Content Analysis

In academia, the quality of a paper generally depends on three criteria: first, (1) the peer-review status, journal ranking and index (Q1, Q2, WOS, Scopus, etc.), and (2) the number of citations. As such, we assume that all collected papers are quality papers as we only collected peer-reviewed research and review articles from prestigious publishers, though we disregarded the last criterion. We conduct a semi-qualitative content analysis by extracting items listed in Table 3 (content analysis column). We focus on three main items (Methodology, type of LR identified, and proposed guideline) and three supporting items (databases, software used, and sample size) to score the quality of each paper. We use MS Excel and Large Language Model webware (Google NotebookLM) as recommended by previous studies [1,29,62] to process, extract, and analyze the selected papers. We manually choose our final sample size of n = 115 papers by assessing the above six items.

Table 11. Summary of literature review and content analysis n = 115 (RP).

Elsevier
Author(s), Pub Year, Type of Article. Sample Size, Journal.	Objective	Type of Lit Review Identified	Methodology	Paper Collection Database(s)	Software Used	Lit Review Guidelines Proposed	Key Findings	Suggestions/Recommendations	Research Gaps	Limitations	Score
[2] (TA): Methodological Guidance/Research Article. (SS): The demonstration extended a prior review of 142 papers to a final set of 224 papers. (J): Journal of Informetrics	To develop a Systematic Iterative Multilayer Literature Review (SIMILAR) method that can simultaneously model the structure and evolution of a research field, using multilayer network theory.	Proposes a new type of literature review method.	Development and demonstration of the SIMILAR method, which consists of four steps: (1) Meta structure search, (2) Exploration of citation network, (3) Relevance examination, and (4) Classification. It uses multilayer network analysis.	Google Scholar (for the demonstration).	R (“igraph” package) and MuxViz.	Yes, proposes the SIMILAR (Systematic Iterative Multilayer Literature Review) method.	Existing literature review methods are either cross-sectional or longitudinal, but not both. SIMILAR allows for both by using multilayer networks. It also uses an iterative process to refine the classification of papers.	Researchers can use the SIMILAR method to refine classification rules iteratively, integrate multilayer network theory, and conduct longitudinal and cross-sectional analyses at the same time.	Current methods are unable to simultaneously model the structure and evolution of a research field. No existing methods integrate multilayer network theory into literature reviews.	The study did not investigate how starting from a different initial review (meta structure) would affect the findings. The method assumes a pre-existing meta structure to start from.	A+++
[64] (M): Methodological Guidance/Framework. (SS): 58 self-identified systematic reviews on LCT. (J): Heliyon	To propose a framework (FLAVIA-LCT) for conducting systematic literature reviews (SLRs) in the Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) field to guide researchers in gathering, synthesizing, and reporting outcomes.	Discusses systematic literature reviews (SLRs).	The paper proposes a framework developed from the authors’ practical review experience, analysis of 58 existing LCT reviews, and influenced by guidelines like PRISMA and STARR-LCA.	N/A (for framework development); mentions Scopus for identifying the scale of LCT literature.	Mentions Excel, MAXQDA, NVivo for data management.	Yes, proposes the FLAVIA-LCT framework (Framework for systematic Literature review to Analyze Vast Information in Life Cycle Thinking studies).	Existing SLR guidelines (e.g., PRISMA) are not fully suitable for LCT studies. STARR-LCA for LCA studies has limitations. Many LCT reviews that claim to be systematic are not.	The FLAVIA-LCT framework is presented as a five-stage process: (1) Research problem definition, (2) Search strategy design, (3) Sample preparation, (4) Data collection and analysis, (5) Result reporting.	A specific framework for conducting SLRs in the broader LCT field (including LCC, S-LCA) is missing.	The framework’s effectiveness has not been statistically evaluated due to data heterogeneity. Applying the framework requires a good understanding of LCT standards to avoid bias.	A+++
Emerald A
Author(s), Pub Year, Type of Article, (SS) & (J)	Objective	Type of Lit Review Identified	Methodology	Paper Collection Database(s)	Software Used	Lit Review Guidelines Proposed	Key Findings	Suggestions/Recommendations	Research Gaps	Limitations	Score
Christopher S.G. Khoo et al., (2011) (TA): Research paper. (SS): 20 articles from JASIST for analysis, plus a test sample of 30 LRs from three journals for reliability testing. (J): Online Information Review	To analyze the macro-level discourse structure of literature reviews and identify different writing styles, as part of a project to develop an automatic summarization system.	Identifies and defines two distinct styles: “descriptive literature reviews” and “integrative literature reviews”.	Content analysis of literature review sections from journal articles using a custom XML coding scheme. Inter-coder reliability was checked.	JASIST, Journal of Documentation, and Online Information Review.	Not mentioned, but an XML coding scheme was developed.	Proposes an XML coding scheme for analyzing discourse structure, with elements like topic, study, meta-critique, meta-summary, method, result, and interpretation.	Literature reviews are written in two styles: Descriptive reviews summarize individual studies with details on methods and results, have a simpler structure, and cite sequentially. Integrative reviews provide high-level critical summaries, have more reviewer commentary (meta-critique/summary), and a more complex structure.	The proposed coding scheme is useful for studying literature reviews in other fields. A good literature review should balance descriptive and integrative elements.	There are few empirical studies on how authors actually construct a literature review—how they select, organize, and present information.	Most literature reviews exist on a continuum between the two poles of descriptive and integrative. The study is based on a limited number of journals.	A+++
GoogleScholar
Author(s), Pub Year, Type of Article, (SS) & (J)	Objective	Type of Lit Review Identified	Methodology	Paper Collection Database(s)	Software Used	Lit Review Guidelines Proposed	Key Findings	Suggestions/Recommendations	Research Gaps	Limitations	Scores
[42] (TA): Research Article/Methodology Description. (SS): 940 articles. (J): Perspectives on Medical Education	To understand and articulate the paradigmatic roots of, and methods for, conducting State-of-the-art (SotA) reviews.	State-of-the-art (SotA) review.	Method: Reviewed 940 articles labeled as SotA reviews published 2014–2021. Inductively analyzed them to articulate philosophical foundations, process steps, and markers of rigor.	PubMed. Also searched Scopus, Web of Science, and Google to find methods-related resources.	Not mentioned.	6-Step Approach for SotA reviews: 1. Determine initial research question. 2. Determine timeframe. 3. Finalize research question to reflect timeframe. 4. Develop search strategy. 5. Analyze literature. 6. Provide a reflexivity description	Purpose: A SotA review creates a three-part argument: This is where we are now, this is how we got here, and this is where we could go next221. Ontology: SotA reviews are grounded in relativism and subjectivism. Prevalence: 98% of articles labeled “SotA review” lacked citations for how to conduct one.	Medical educators should explicitly use this form of knowledge synthesis to advance the field.	The review should posit new directions for research by questioning the soundness of historical turning points and prior decisions.	The methodology and methods of SotA reviews are poorly reported, making them appear to lack rigor.	A+++
[56] (TA): Guide/Research-Based Article. (SS): 99 studies included. (J): Journal of Planning Education and Research.	To provide guidance on how to conduct a systematic literature review by surveying publications on the methodology of literature reviews.	Typology based on purpose: Describe (Narrative, Scoping, etc.), Test (Meta-analysis, Realist), Extend (Meta-ethnography, Thematic synthesis), and Critique (critical review).	The authors conducted their own systematic review of the methodology literature, searching Google Scholar, Web of Science, and EBSCOhost.	Recommends Google Scholar, Web of Science, EBSCOhost, and “gray literature”.	Recommends reference managers (EndNote, RefWorks, Zotero) and qualitative analysis software (NVivo, ATLAS.ti)	8 Steps: 1. Formulate problem. 2. Develop and validate protocol. 3. Search literature. 4. Screen for inclusion. 5. Assess quality. 6. Extract data. 7. Analyze and synthesize data. 8. Report findings.	Literature reviews can be background for a study or a stand-alone piece. Reviews should be valid, reliable, and repeatable. The planning field lacks rigorous systematic reviews.	Start with a research question381. Choose a review type suitable for the purpose382. Develop a review protocol before starting. Document all decisions to ensure the process is transparent and repeatable. Teamwork is encouraged.	The review should identify gaps in the literature to explore and point out opportunities for future research.	A common mistake is selecting too broad a research question381. Publication bias can result from omitting “gray literature”.	A+++
[47] (TA): Editorial. (SS): N/A. (TA): Human Resource Development Review (HRDR)	To refocus authors on what constitutes a good literature review by describing characteristics of rigorous reviews.	Integrative, systematic, historical, conceptual, methodological, and rapid structured literature reviews (RSLR).	N/A—Editorial.	Notes the value of “snowballing” and reverse citation tracking over just database searches.	N/A	Proposes the “Five C’s” of rigorous reviews (Concise, Clear, Critical, Convincing, Contributive)178 and the “Six Ws” for a method section (Who, When, Where, How, What, Why).	Literature reviews are important for evidence-based decisions and identifying knowledge gaps. Submitted manuscripts frequently fail to clearly articulate review methods.	Reviews should be guided by a specific question addressing a “gap”. Authors must clearly articulate their methods181 and develop a convincing argument that contributes to knowledge.	N/A—Editorial. Notes that reviews identify knowledge gaps.	N/A	A+++
Springer Nature Link
Author(s), Pub Year, Type of Article, (SS) & (J)	Objective	Type of Lit Review Identified	Methodology	Paper Collection Database(s)	Software Used	Lit Review Guidelines Proposed	Key Findings	Suggestions/Recommendations	Research Gaps	Limitations	Score
Natan S. Rodrigues et al., (2024). (TA): Literature Review. (SS): 211 documents (2003 and 2022). (J): International Journal on Digital Libraries.	To provide a literature review of Author Name Disambiguation (AND) using a consolidated meta-analytic approach, combining quantitative techniques and bibliometric aspects.	The paper identifies itself as a literature review with a consolidated meta-analytic approach (TEMAC), contrasting it with a traditional systematic literature review.	Followed the Theory of Consolidated Meta-analytic Approach (TEMAC), which combines bibliometric laws (e.g., Bradford’s, Prince’s) with co-citation and bibliographic coupling analysis.	Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus.	VOSviewer and BiblioTools.	Proposes using the TEMAC approach, which integrates bibliometric analysis into the literature review process.	The most common AND approaches involve author grouping and clustering methods. Computer Science is the leading field, and the USA, China, Germany, and Brazil are the most prolific countries in AND research.	Future work could include more bibliographic databases and complement the meta-analytic approach with a formal systematic review.	A meta-analytical review of AND had not been conducted before, creating a foundation for future research.	The meta-analytic approach is exploratory and does not follow a strict protocol with specific research questions like an SLR100. The merging of databases was done via a custom script, as VOSviewer was limited to one at a time.	A++
[45] (TA): Methodological Tool Paper. (SS): 24 manuscripts. (J): Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology.	To describe a step-by-step process for conducting a literature review using a qualitative analysis approach with NVivo software.	Describes various types, including minor literature review, systematic quantitative review (meta-analysis), and qualitative literature review. The example is based on a scoping review.	Describes a six-step process for using QDAS in a literature review, exemplified by a parent study that used a scoping review methodology and grounded theory for analysis.	The parent study used PubMed, Cochrane, and CINAHL.	NVivo is the central focus. MaxQDA and EndNote are also mentioned.	Proposes a six-step process for conducting a literature review using qualitative data analysis software (QDAS).	Using QDAS like NVivo can enhance the rigor, transparency, reproducibility, and analytical depth of a literature review compared to manual methods.	Researchers can benefit from using QDAS to organize literature, identify themes, and visualize data, which can reveal subtle insights missed by manual methods.	There is limited research exploring the use of QDAS programs for the analytical process of literature reviews. Textbooks often lack sufficient detail on how to conduct a high-quality review.	The use of QDAS has limitations, including the cost of software and training, and a potential time investment for new users.	A+++
Joan Marie Kraft et al., (2022). (TA): Methodology paper. (SS): 18 reviews (for umbrella review); 3 worked examples (for testing). (J): International Journal for Equity in Health.	To develop the Social Accountability Reporting for Research (SAR4Research) checklist to improve documentation of SA interventions.	Umbrella Review (of systematic and narrative reviews)	Multi-step process: (1) an umbrella review of 18 reviews to find reporting gaps; (2) review of existing guidelines; (3) development of a checklist based on CONSORT-SPI; (4) testing with three worked examples.	Pubmed, Google Scholar (for umbrella review)	Not specified.	Yes, proposes the SAR4Research reporting checklist.	Existing SA studies have significant reporting gaps regarding context, intervention components, and study methods. No existing guideline adequately addressed these gaps for SA interventions.	Authors should use the SAR4Research checklist to improve reporting, potentially across multiple papers or using Supplementary Materials.	The lack of a specific reporting guideline for complex social accountability interventions.	The umbrella review was not systematic. The worked examples were not representative of all SA interventions.	A+++
[110] Guidelines. (SS): N/A. European Journal of Epidemiology.	To provide a 24-step guide on how to perform a methodologically sound systematic review and meta-analysis in medical research.	The paper provides a guide for conducting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.	Not a research study; it presents a comprehensive guideline based on established methodologies and expert recommendations.	Recommends searching at least Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar.	Recommends tools like EndNote, Covidence, and Rayyan for screening, and STATA, R, RevMan for meta-analysis.	Proposes a 24-step guide for conducting and publishing a systematic review and meta-analysis, from defining the research question to final submission. Also advocates using PRISMA/MOOSE reporting standards.	The quality of published systematic reviews is highly variable. A well-conducted review is a complex process requiring a coordinated team, a clear protocol, and rigorous methods.	Researchers should establish a team with diverse expertise (including a librarian), register their protocol (e.g., in PROSPERO), and use tools like GRADE to assess evidence quality.	Notes that most existing guidelines focus on reporting or appraising reviews rather than providing efficient guidance on how to conduct them.	The paper itself does not state any limitations, as it is a set of guidelines.	A+++
Christian Fisch, (2018). (TA): Editorial. (SS): N/A. (J): Management Review Quarterly.	To outline six tips to help authors improve their (systematic) literature review in business and management research.	The editorial discusses (systematic) literature reviews 388. It clarifies that their journal’s understanding of an SLR is one that follows a systematic, transparent, and reproducible process.	Not a research paper; it is an editorial providing guidance and tips based on the authors’ experience as editors.	N/A.	N/A.	Proposes six tips for writing a literature review: (1) Motivate the topic and state the research question, (2) Identify literature systematically, (3) Balance breadth and depth, (4) Focus on concepts, not studies, (5) Derive meaningful conclusions, (6) Follow a coherent structure.	Many researchers seem unfamiliar with the process and structure of systematic literature reviews, often producing mere descriptive summaries. A high-quality literature review is not a trivial endeavor and requires in-depth understanding and experience.	Authors should not just summarize literature but should synthesize and interpret knowledge, identify gaps, and outline future research avenues. A concept-centric approach is preferable to a study-centric one.	A common problem is that reviews often become descriptive annotated bibliographies rather than analytical and synthetic works of scholarship.	The editorial does not state its own limitations.	A+++
Taylor & Francis
Author(s), Pub Year, Type of Article, (SS) & (J)	Objective	Type of Lit Review Identified	Methodology	Paper Collection Database(s)	Software Used	Lit Review Guidelines Proposed	Key Findings	Suggestions/Recommendations	Research Gaps	Limitations	Score
[64] (TA): Research Article. (SS): 125 bachelor’s theses, plus 9 supervisors & 7 student interviews and 25 feedback from other students. (J): Studies in Higher Education.	To increase understanding of the narrative literature review process by applying process theory.	Narrative and Systematic Literature Reviews 68. The article itself conducts a systematic review to define the steps of a literature review process.	Builds on developmental process theory (specifically teleology process theory). Data includes group interviews and documentary analysis of bachelor’s theses.	For its internal review, the study followed guidelines from established sources but does not list specific databases.	Webropol.	Proposes an iterative, non-structured, multi-layered process model for narrative reviews with four repeating steps (exploring, focusing, analyzing/synthesizing, writing) punctuated by written outcomes.	The narrative literature review process is not linear like a systematic review; it is iterative, socially constructed, and involves continuous writing of cumulative reports… It aligns with teleology process theory.	Supervisors and students should recognize the iterative and hermeneutic nature of the narrative review process. The role of cumulative written reports in marking progress should be emphasized.	A justified explanation of how a narrative literature review process progresses is absent from the existing literature.	The study focuses on bachelor’s students, so findings may not apply to more experienced researchers. The sample consisted of volunteers, and the authors’ role was embedded in the process.	A+++
[51] (TA): Descriptive literature review. (SS): 142 LR published in top IS journals. (J): European Journal of Information Systems.	To assess the extent to which IS review articles are transparent in reporting their methodologies.	The study itself is a descriptive review. It classifies other reviews using taxonomies by Rowe (2014) and Paré et al. (2015), identifying types like narrative, descriptive, scoping, critical, meta-analysis, and theory development.	Manual search of 8 top IS journals (2000–2014). Selected reviews were classified by type and coded against 22 reporting items using directed content analysis.	Manual search of 8 specific journals (EJIS, ISJ, ISR, JAIS, JIT, JMIS, JSIS, MISQ).	Not specified.	Provides a list of 22 reporting items across 6 generic review steps that can be used as a framework for authors to improve transparency.	The majority of IS reviews show inadequate reporting of methods. Theory development and narrative reviews are the most common and least transparent types.	Authors of all review types should better document their design decisions. Journal editors could place methodological details in an appendix. Doctoral students need better training in conducting reviews.	No prior formal assessment of review reporting practices exists in the IS field.	The sample is limited to 8 journals and may not be representative of the entire IS field. The assessment is based on what was reported, not what was done.	A+++
[38] (TA): Conceptual/Methodological Article. (SS): Not applicable. (J): International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches.	To present an interactive meta-framework (ILRP) that can be used by advisors to facilitate the development of literature reviews by doctoral students.	Mixed research synthesis/mixed methods literature review.	The paper proposes a conceptual meta-framework, not an empirical study. The framework is built on Vygotsky’s theory of social development, Kuhlthau’s information search process model, and Onwuegbuzie et al.’s framework for debriefing.	Not applicable.	Mentions RefWorks, NVivo 8, QDA Miner 3.2, and Excel as potential tools for students	Proposes the Interactive Literature Review Process (ILRP), a nine-stage meta-framework: (1) Exploring belief systems, (2) Initiating the process, (3) Selecting a topic, (4) Exploring literature, (5) Formulating a focus, (6) Analyzing/interpreting/integrating, (7) Closing the search, (8) Writing, (9) Evaluating.	Many dissertation literature reviews are poorly conceptualized and written, often due to inadequate instruction. The typical literature review process is a solitary event, whereas the proposed ILRP is interactive and cooperative.	Advisors and professors should use a comprehensive approach like the ILRP to guide students. The ILRP can also be used by self-directed students for self-auditing, though interaction with a mentor is optimal.	Research methods textbooks provide scant instruction on organizing the search process, focusing on a topic, or evaluating literature.	Not applicable.	A+++
Wiley
Author(s), Pub Year, Type of Article, (SS) & (J)	Objective	Type of Lit Review Identified	Methodology	Paper Collection Database(s)	Software Used	Lit Review Guidelines Proposed	Key Findings	Suggestions/Recommendations	Research Gaps	Limitations	Score
[98] (TA): Original Article/Methodological Protocol. (SS): N/A. (J): International Journal of Consumer Studies.	To develop a rigorous and authoritative protocol, SPAR-4-SLR, to guide and justify decisions in systematic literature reviews.	Systematic literature reviews (SLRs), including domain-based, theory-based, method-based, meta-analytical, and meta-systematic reviews.	Based on the authors’ collective expertise and experience in authoring, editing, and reviewing literature reviews.	Recommends Google Scholar, WOS, or Scopus.	N/A	Proposes the SPAR-4-SLR (Scientific Procedures and Rationales for Systematic Literature Reviews) protocol, a 3-stage (Assembling, Arranging, Assessing) process with detailed rationales for each step.	SLRs are increasingly valuable, but existing guidelines often lack sufficient rationale to justify review decisions. Provides criteria for when an SLR should be written (e.g., substantial body of work exists, no recent high-quality reviews).	Researchers should use the proposed protocol for rigor and transparency, conduct reviews for the right reasons (to consolidate knowledge), and collaborate with methodological experts.	Few authoritative protocols with clear rationales for SLR decisions exist.	The protocol is newly proposed, and its effectiveness in practice is yet to be widely tested.	A+++
Marco Pautasso. (2015) (TA): Book Chapter/Guideline. (SS): N/A. (J): NA, Book Chapter in A Guide to the Scientific Career.	To provide a brief guideline on how to conduct a narrative literature review based on the author’s experience and 10 simple rules.	Narrative, systematic, meta-analysis, mini-review, full review, descriptive, and integrative reviews.	Based on the author’s experience with ~30 literature reviews, feedback from peers, and established principles.	Recommends searching various databases; mentions Web of Science and Google Scholar.	Mendeley, Papers, Qiqqa, Sente, Zotero.	Proposes “Ten simple rules for writing a literature review,” covering team formation, topic definition, searching, note-taking, review type selection, structure, and dissemination.	Literature reviews are increasingly necessary and can be as innovative as primary research. Different types of reviews are appropriate for different goals.	Work in teams, define scope and exclusion criteria early, document the search process, take notes while reading, be critical, seek feedback, and disseminate the final work.	A key aim of a literature review is to identify the most pressing research gaps in a field.	The chapter focuses specifically on narrative literature reviews.	A+++
Nature Portfolio
Author(s), Pub Year, Type of Article, (SS) & (J)	Objective	Type of Lit Review Identified	Methodology	Paper Collection Database(s)	Software Used	Lit Review Guidelines Proposed	Key Findings	Suggestions/Recommendations	Research Gaps	Limitations	Score
[57] (TA): Perspective. (SS): N/A. (J): Nature Ecology & Evolution (inferred from DOI).	To identify major pitfalls in systematic reviews, offer methodological solutions, highlight existing support, and propose interventions to improve review quality.	Systematic reviews, traditional literature reviews, meta-analyses, narrative synthesis, systematic maps.	A critical review of current practices using recent examples from conservation and environmental science to highlight common problems.	N/A	SysRev, R.	Proposes eight solutions to common review problems. Recommends following established standards like PRISMA and ROSES and guidance from bodies like CEE and Cochrane.	Identifies eight major problems, including lack of stakeholder engagement, transparency, and appropriate synthesis; finds that many reviews, even those labeled ‘systematic’, are poorly conducted.	Reviewers should use a priori protocols, engage stakeholders, use comprehensive and transparent search strategies, include grey literature, critically appraise studies, avoid vote-counting, and work in teams.	The need for better training and support to ensure rigorous review standards are implemented.	This is a perspective piece, not a systematic review quantifying the prevalence of the identified issues.	A+++

Note: Appendix A and Table S1 show a continuation of this table. The full table was extracted from Table S2, the results of content analysis of the ample size RP (seed). See Supplementary File S2.

below shows a summary of the content analysis, including the score.

4. Results and Findings

The purpose of our study is to design a Generally Accepted Research Protocol (GARP) for literature review to help researchers in general and students in particular to write a relevant, accurate, and sustainable literature review. The goal here is to propose a universal alternative way to conduct an LR. The results of the study content analysis show that in the last two decades, several similar initiatives have been taken, supporting the need for a universal framework for literature review writing. These initiatives can be divided into three groups: (1) research proposing a new method or model similar to the present study (e.g., SIMILAR by Kosztyán et al. [2]); (2) research extending existing models (8-stage model for scoping LR by Wanda et al. [111] following Arksey & O’Malley’s scoping review framework); and (3) research proposing new steps (e.g., 24-step guideline by Muka et al. [110]). However, each research has limitations in terms of methodology, sample size, focus (steps), type of literature review, and scope (discipline). Regardless of the limitations, various models (frameworks) have gained popularity among researchers for covering all angles of a LR process or by being recognized and accepted by a particular journal or organization (PRISMA statement and extension [99,100], Xiao and Watson guide [61], PICO and extension [112], CONSORT guideline [108], Arksey & O’Malley’s Framework [113], Cochrane methodology [114], Snyder guideline [54], Kitchenham et al. [115], etc.). We also find that most guidelines have common steps, even though the process and focus of the guideline differ depending on the objective and methodology. See Table 11, Table A1 and Table A2 for the full content analysis table and more guidelines.

4.1. GARP for Literature Review: Research Framework and Guideline

Based on the existing guideline and our findings, we designed the following framework for the Generally Accepted Research Protocol (GARP) for Literature Review (4LR). See Figure 10 below.

4.2. GARP-4LR Summary and Application: The ABCD/PCPR of GARP

We propose the GARP framework as a universal method to be applied when conducting a synthesis on any given subject or topic. The following Figure 11 shows a practical application of how to use the GARP-LR when conducting a synthesis on any research topic (See Appendix C).

5. Discussion

Following the methodology described in Section 3 and content analysis findings, we developed the GARP framework (see Figure 10) as an alternative model for literature review writing. The GARP framework is the result of the present study process, supported by n = 115 articles selected from a multidisciplinary sample size of n = 2405 articles. We find that writing a literature review is a four (4) phases process with a combined set of 24 steps described as follows:

Phase (1): (S1: topic formulation (C); S2: keywords choice (C); S3: State the Objectives or Purpose of the study (C); S4: Develop the Research questions or Hypothesis (C); S5: Identify Gaps (preliminary research) (O); S6: Choice of Literature Review (O); S7: Choice of Structure or Draft (C) Choice of Methodology (O); S8: Choice of Software (tools) (C); S9: Choice of Databases, Journals and time period (C); S10: type of research (documents) to be collected (e.g., peer-review articles, book chapter, theses, conference, editorial, etc.) (C); S11: Choice of Language (C); S12: Choice of Sample size and Scope (Discipline, fields, subject of interest, topic, etc.) (C); S13: coding method (O); S14: choice of independent reviewer (s) or collaborators (O)). We include the planning phase in the framework because we started “from scratch” without taking into account existing checklists or methodologies like previous studies [46,116,117,118]. This phase can be comparable to the first six (6) Decisions (D1–D6) of the Sauer guideline [24].

Phase (2): Implementation with a total of six (6) steps (S1: data collection (C)—during this step we recommend the following: if possible, record or take a screenshot of every step of the process (O); focus on article related to the scope of the study (C); use a reference manager; save the collected literature (documents) in one file online and offline (C); S2: data processing divided into two parts: (a) Data Coding and Cleaning including Coding the papers (O), removing duplicates and irrelevant papers (C), excluding papers outside of the study scope (C), include relevant papers, and categorizing papers (C); and (b) Data Extraction and Analysis, for which we recommend using a software (AI-enabled tools) reported to extract the preferred items (relevant information) (O), and analyzing (Assess, Evaluate and Process) the extracted information (O); S3: results (C) include reporting the results in a clear, concise and understandable way with table, figure, graph and bullet points (C&O); S4: conceptualization (O) include designing the framework (optional depending on the type of research Article); S5: discussion (C)—discuss the results, findings, framework, and methodology weakness, advantage, limitations, and future direction in brief if the plan is to have the limitations and future direction in a separated section or sub-section of the conclusion; S6: writing (C): this step is special because it can or should be done simultaneously following each step of the review or after the analysis (data processing and results) However this step should be done following the writer (s) preference or plan (C)). This step is highlighted commonly by all previous studies of our final sample size because it includes three main steps (data collection, data analysis and data reporting) that we consider to be the core steps of literature review writing [48,109,119,120,121,122,123,124]. This phase can be comparable to seven (7) decisions (D7-D13) of the Sauer study [24].

Phase (3): Publication with a total of two (2) steps (S1: before writing (C&O), which include targeting impactful journal suitable for the research publication and follow the author’s guideline (structure and word count) (O); S2: after writing (C&O), which includes checking for the matching journal on the publisher or journal platform or chose a journal from the study final sample size (O)). This phase has rarely been included in the framework and/or guideline of previous research and has only been mentioned by a few studies as a recommendation, maybe because this step is simple but complex due to the rate and risk of rejection from top journals and the traumatic experience all researchers have to go through for the paper to be accepted. Regardless, this step is crucial because the final goal of writing a relevant, accurate and sustainable literature review for a researcher is to have it published in a top journal so that more people can gain insight from it. This phase is comparable to the Sauer D14 Decision [24].

The final Phase (4): Sharing & Update, which is optional and has a total of two (2) steps (S1: sharing (C)—after publication, the author(s) should share the paper to friends, colleagues, and in conferences and meetings (O); S2: update (O)—after a period of time (a year), the author(s) should consider writing an update of the review or a follow up to fill the gaps of the research (O)). This phase has not been included in any of the frameworks analyzed in this study, but it is recommended. The overlook may be due to the fact that it is an optional step that assumes that the paper will be published in a top journal. Sauer’s fourteen (14) Decision does not include this step in the last phase [24].

5.1. Comparison with PRISMA 2020 and SPAR 4 SLR

To explicitly position GARP 4LR within the landscape of existing review protocols, we compare it with the two most frequently cited frameworks in our sample: PRISMA 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta Analyses) and SPAR 4 SLR (Scientific Procedures and Rationales for Systematic Literature Reviews).

Table 12. Comparative overview of GARP 4LR, PRISMA 2020, and SPAR 4 SLR.

Feature	GARP-4LR (This Study)	PRISMA 2020	SPAR-4-SLR [61]
Purpose	Universal protocol for any literature review	Reporting guideline for systematic reviews/meta-analyses	Procedural protocol for systematic literature reviews
Discipline focus	Multidisciplinary (education, engineering, medicine, AFEM)	Primarily health sciences; extensions for other fields	Business, management, and consumer research
Structure	4 phases (Plan, Implement, Publish, Share/Update)	27-item checklist + PRISMA flow diagram	3 stages (Assemble, Arrange, Assess)
Number of steps/actions	24 steps (compulsory + optional)	27 reporting items + 4-phase flow diagram	14 actions within 6 sub-steps (based on 3 stages)
Core emphasis	Three essential tasks: data collection, data processing, data reporting	Transparent reporting of methods and results of systematic reviews	Rigorous justification of review decisions, from problem formulation to reporting
Flexibility	High—applicable to all review types (narrative, scoping, systematic, etc.)	Moderate—primarily for systematic reviews; adaptations needed for other types	High for systematic reviews; less guidance for non-systematic types
Registration/protocol requirement	Optional; encourages a priori protocol, but not mandatory	Recommends protocol registration (e.g., PROSPERO)	Recommends a pre-registered protocol
Meta-analysis integration	Can accommodate meta-analysis, but it is not mandatory	Strongly linked to meta-analysis where appropriate	Supports meta-analysis; provides rationales
Publication phase	Explicit steps for journal targeting and post-submission diffusion	Not included; assumes research is published	Implicitly covered in the Assessing stage
Update & sharing	Dedicated optional phase for updating and disseminating the review	Not specifically addressed	Not specifically addressed
Unique ‘noise’ reduction	Focuses on the “synthesis core” by eliminating non-essential procedural checkpoints	Comprehensive checklist may overwhelm newcomers	Highly detailed rationales; process can be lengthy

below provides a structured comparison between GARP 4LR, PRISMA 2020, and SPAR 4 SLR.

This comparison highlights the complementary nature of the three protocols. PRISMA excels at standardizing the reporting of systematic reviews, while SPAR 4 SLR provides a detailed decision-oriented process for conducting systematic literature reviews. GARP 4LR, in contrast, is designed as a general-purpose protocol that distills the literature review process into its indispensable core, cutting across review types and disciplines. Its emphasis on “data collection—data processing—data reporting” directly addresses the call of several reviewers for a less cluttered, more accessible methodology. The publication and update phases, absent in the other protocols, additionally close the gap between review production and real-world impact. (See

Table A10. Simplify comparative overview of GARP 4LR, PRISMA 2020, and SPAR 4 SLR.

Feature	GARP-4LR (Proposed)	PRISMA Statement	SPAR-4-SLR Protocol
Primary Scope	Multidisciplinary/Universal	Medicine and Healthcare	Business, Management, AFEM
Core Focus	End-to-end writing, publication, and sharing process	Reporting transparency and bias reduction	Justification of methodological decisions
Structure	4 Phases, 24 Steps	27-item checklist	3 Stages, 14 Decisions
“Noise” Eliminated	Bypasses rigid statistical meta-analysis requirements for general reviews; focuses only on actionable synthesis steps	N/A (Highly rigid)	N/A (Focuses heavily on early-stage retrieval rationale)
Publication Phase	Explicitly included (Targeting, matching)	Not included	Briefly mentioned as a final step
Post-Publication	Explicitly included (Sharing, updating)	Not included	Not included

. Simplify comparative overview of GARP 4LR, PRISMA 2020, and SPAR 4 SLR).

6. Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to design a Generally Accepted Research Protocol (GARP) for Literature review (4LR) writing as an alternative universal method to the various methods available across different disciplines. To accomplish this, we collected articles from multiple disciplines grouped into three categories (“Education and Engineering”, “Mental health and Health care”, and “Accounting, Finance, Economy, and Management”) in order to collect a relevant and accurate database to serve as a foundation of the GARP framework. From an initial sample size of 2405 articles, we successfully managed to extract 115 articles after several manual and automated data processes. Our content analysis results show that many similar initiatives have been taken by several authors across various disciplines, with some models and guidelines [54,61,108,112,113,114] gaining recognition across disciplines. However, the rising number of guidelines and extensions shows there is a need for a universal guideline that agrees on the main steps or phases of writing a relevant, accurate, and sustainable literature review. The PRISMA statement is leading the way toward this destination, but it is not accepted by all, as shown by the rising number of propositions. Regardless of the propositions, guidelines on writing a literature review share three common steps: data collection, data processing, and data reporting. We hope that the present research guideline (GARP) will contribute to the state of the art (SOTA) of writing a literature review and push editors and researchers to reach a consensus on what really matters: the synthesis and freedom of process.

7. Limitations, Future Directions and Recommendations

The present study is a multidisciplinary, multi-method investigation reflecting the authors’ perspective on literature review writing. Although every effort was made to ensure rigor, several limitations must be acknowledged.

First, the absence of a medical sciences expert.

The research team consisted of three social science (AFEM) experts and one engineering (EE) expert; no member held advanced qualifications in medical or healthcare sciences. This gap could have influenced the interpretation of medical literature review standards. To mitigate this risk, we (a) conscientiously included and analyzed systematic review guidelines from authoritative medical sources (e.g., Cochrane Handbook, PRISMA statements) and (b) consulted two medical researchers who provided feedback on our extracted core steps. Future studies should include balanced, multidisciplinary teams that encompass medical expertise to further validate the universal applicability of GARP-4LR.

Second, empirical validation—a clarification and a path forward.

The GARP-4LR framework was constructed inductively from a large sample of methodological articles. We acknowledge that, to date, no independent case study or comparative experiment has been conducted to externally validate the framework. This remains an important limitation.

However, we also emphasize that the present study itself constitutes an empirical demonstration of the GARP-4LR framework. Every step of the protocol was followed in real time to conduct the systematic literature review that produced the framework—from data collection and processing to analysis and reporting. Consequently, this manuscript can be read as a working, step-by-step application of GARP-4LR. In this sense, the framework has already undergone a form of empirical testing, albeit within the same research process that generated it.

Future research should build on this foundation by conducting external case studies or controlled experiments in which novice and experienced reviewers apply GARP-4LR alongside existing protocols (e.g., PRISMA, SPAR-4-SLR) to compare efficiency, usability, and output quality. Such independent validation is essential to confirm the claimed reduction in procedural “noise” and the improved sustainability of the review process. Until then, the present study serves as both the theoretical development and the first practical guideline for using GARP-4LR.

Third, methodological constraints.

The semi-qualitative content analysis relied on human judgment and basic software tools (MS Excel, Notebook). More advanced qualitative data analysis software and inter-rater reliability statistics could further enhance the trustworthiness of the coding process.

Fourth, database and language limitations.

Articles were collected from only seven publishers and one supporting database, and only English-language publications were considered. This may have excluded relevant non-English guidelines and discipline-specific databases (e.g., PubMed for medicine, ERIC for education). Future multidisciplinary reviews should incorporate these resources.

Fifth, citation and journal quality.

We did not use citation counts or journal impact factors as quality filters, relying instead on peer review status and publisher reputation. While this approach maintained breadth, it may have included less influential works; subsequent research could focus on top-tier journals only.

Despite these limitations, the GARP-4LR framework is grounded in an extensive, multidisciplinary evidence base and offers a practical, streamlined alternative for literature review writing. With the clarification above, we believe the manuscript appropriately moderates any claims of novelty and honestly presents the framework as a tested-in-practice guideline—one that is ready for immediate use and for future independent validation.