Keywords

Literature Review; Guidelines; Systematic Review; Research Methodology

Introduction

It is obvious that different types of reviews have laid down guidelines for carrying out literature reviews, For example, integrative and narrative approaches (Altheide & Johnson, 1994; Babbie, 2015), systematic review and meta-analysis (Birkinshaw et al., 2011); Alkhoraif & McLaughlin, 2021), also, integrative approches (Boyle, 1994). Trials to come up with procedures, particularly about management and business study, have also been made (Denyer et al., 2008). This paper summarizes and integrates various guidelines by creating and developing the multiple varieties pertaining to reviews in literature. This involves how to apply the same in studies in the field of business. To be specific, this paper aims to surface a general view of the different types of literature reviews and their guidelines regarding research methods in business research.

In the paper below, the discussion on the potential of coming up with practical and theoretical contributions with regards to the procedure of literature reproach is to be taken to the next level by explaining in details what literature review is, its uses, and methodology to use to assess the level of its standards. In the paper, various contributions are provided, number one being the differentiation of the different types of review methodology, systemic, semi-systematic and integrative. It states that every kind of review can have high impacts depending on the purpose. Although systematic reviews are characteristic of strict search strategy requirements and article selection, they are very impactful because they can synthesize the contents of the collection of studies for a particular study question and the supporting information of the impact that can tell about practice and policy. Nevertheless, are systematic approaches the most appropriate strategy since, in a situation whereby one wants to research on a broad subject. Various concepts researched within different subjects can fully hamper the entire process of a systematic approach.

On the contrary, an approach that is semi-systematic can work in a similar situation. An example is to identify the gaps of knowledge in literature review in case of themes or approaches. In cases whereby a research question may require a more creative data collection, an integrative review would be the best. This applies in a situation whereby the review's objective is to integrate different approaches to develop new theoretical models rather than tackling all the articles that were previously published about the subject.

Second, this paper investigates the issues that may pose challenges when carrying out a business-related literature approach. Some of these matters of concern include selecting the most suitable procedure of review on the study question to be tackled, making up mind on the data to be extracted from the paper, deciding on what data to extract from the paper, determining the eligibility of criteria, deciding on the type of contribution to make, or determining the area within which to conduct the review. The third, an offering a guidance to scholars who might require literature review as a method to conduct research, add detail information to their research and provide social guidance policy. Finally, the paper also aims to explain procedures on how to evaluate standards when assessing papers on a review that might be of importance to editors, authors, reviewers, and readers of review papers.

Whys It Is Vital to Write a Literature Review

In many research articles, the authors begin by referencing previous research to provide background information about the research area. This is done to establish the study's aim and show the meaning behind the research question and hypothesis. This process, in general terms, is called "literature review," "research background," or "theoretical background." In order to create a proper research methodology from a literature review, it is advisable to properly take into account the laid down guidelines to see to it that the approach is precise, credible, and accurate. Just as is the case with any study, the quality of an academic approach is determined by what is done, the findings, and the logic in presenting it (Alkhoraif & McLaughlin, 2021). A researcher can apply various strategies, guidelines, and standards concerning the objective of the approach, more especially when carrying out a literature review. This drives us to the question; on what grounds can we use literature review in the place of a study methodology?

In many times, a review of literature may be the most suitable procedural equipment for providing answers to various research questions. For instance, in a case whereby a researcher is on a mission to assess a theory or supporting information in a particular field or to evaluate the accuracy or validity of a particular theory or certain theories in competition(Denyer et al., 2008). This type of approach may either be broad, for example, when looking into the general supportive information pertaining to a certain area of study or narrow, for instance, when researching the impact of the interdependency between two variables. Additionally, literature reviews are essential when providing a general view concerning a certain research problem or issue. A literature review of this nature is carried out to assess the level of understanding of a certain discipline. It facilitates creating research agenda, discussion or (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Bryant, 2009; Crofton & Dale, 1996). Another importance of literature reviews is when engaging advancement within a theory. A literature review serves as the foundation for developing new concepts pertaining to an idea or framework in all these cases. This can be of importance when the objective is to track the progress of a certain research area over time. Although, it is worth nothing in terms of method to could be used varies depending on the objective of LR.

Literature Review: Different approaches to be conducted

As earlier mentioned, there are various laid down procedures for carrying out literature reviews. Table 1 illustrates all types of the important and appropriate approaches for methodologies needed to achieve the goals. These reviews may fall into the category of qualitative, quantitative, or a combination of both regarding the review phase. Next, a description of the wide three types of the frequently used procedures will be provided. This wide nature is due to be discussed and presented entail the systematic review, the integrated review, or the semi-systematic review, as presented in Table 2. All these review strategies can play a vital role in answering a certain research question within the right circumstances. It is, however, worth acknowledging the existence of numerous other types of approaches in the literature, and the elements of various reviews are in most cases integrated. Since these reviews a quite broad, it is worth noting that there might be the necessity to adapt them to a specific study project.

Table 1 Approaches for Literature Review
Design	Semi-systematic	Systematic	Combination
Research questions	General	Specific	Narrow or general
Purpose	Track development	Compare evidence	Critical and synthesize
Characteristic	Article research	Quantitative	Books, article and text
Strategy	Not specific systematic	systematic	Not always systematic
Analysis	Both qualitative and quantitative	Quantitative	Qualitative

Table 2 Sample of Existing Guidelines for Establish A Literature Review
Authors	Discipline	Type of Literature review	Contribution
(Guba & Lincoln, 1994)	Psychology	Narrative review	Overviews reasons for conducting a review
(Howell, 2012)			Discusses common mistakes for conducting a review
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015)	Management	Systematic review	Compares management and healthcare research
(Denyer et al., 2008)
(Schein, 2004)			Highlights the challenges of conducting a systematic review in management research
(Gill & Johnson, 2010)			Provides guidelines for conducting a systematic literature review in management research
(Allard & Anderson, 2005)	Human Resources	Integrative review	Defines the integrative literature review
(Khajeh Nobar et al., 2020)			Provides guidelines and examples for integrative literature reviews
(Devers, 1999)			Discusses contributions of a integrative literature review
(Birdi et al., 2008)
(Mason, 1996)	Medicine	Systematic review and meta-	Provides guidelines for conducting and reporting systematic reviews and meta-analysis
(Oates, 2009)
(Oates, 2009)	Medicine	Systematic review and meta-	Provides guidelines for conducting a meta-narrative review
(Padgett, 2008)	Social Sciences	Analysis	Synthesizes guidelines for systematic literature reviews
(Brown et al., 2000)		Semi-systematic review	Provides guidelines for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis in social sciences
(Birdi et al., 2008)
(Khajeh Nobar et al., 2020)	Marketing	Review papers and systematic reviews	Provides guidelines for publishing review papers in the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
(Goulding, 2005)

Literature Review: Systematic Review

What systematic literature review is? and when should be applied? To begin with, it is important to know that systemic reviews originated in medical science as a method of processing the outcomes of research in a transparent, regenerative, and systematic manner, and the reviews have been assigned the gold category as a type of review (Trochim & Donnelly, 2001). In addition, this method has an advantage by using in business research where has not been prevalent. However, it can be said to be increasing (e.g., Sackmann, 2006). A systematic approach can be described as the process and the study method involved in pointing out and analytically estimating comparative study and the sampling and evaluation of data obtained from the study in question (Crofton & Dale, 1996; Merriam, 1997). The systematic approach aims to point out all the empirical supporting details that can be contained in an outlined factor-in criteria to solve a specific study hypothesis or question. The use of systemic and explicit methods can reduce bias in reviewing articles and all the supporting evidence, hence providing reliable findings from which reasonable conclusions can be made and informed decisions made (Abdullah Abdulaziz Alkhoraif & McLaughlin, 2021; Thomas et al., 2012).

What nature of analysis can be carried out?

Usually, meta-analysis in statistical method are vital in combining the result generated from the studies. A meta-analysis refers to the process of statistically integrating the results generated from various studies to weigh in, make comparisons, and identify patterns, relationships, or disagreements that arise from the discussions of various researches pertaining to the same topic. In the case of a meta-analysis approach, every primary research is sampled and ciphered. At the same time, the discoveries are continuously converted into a usual metric to calculate the overall size of the effect (Kolb, 2012; Leedy, 1997). However, to conduct a meta-analysis, the studies involved must have shared statistical measurement or size of the effect to compare the outcome. It, therefore, poses difficulties to carry out a meta-analysis on studies that have various procedural approaches. Besides, in higher-ranked business journals, there are several published meta-analyses(Koenigsaecker, 2005). However, a significant challenge lies in evaluating the quality of the outcomes of a study in areas that are not restricted to some managed attempts (Denyer et al., 2008). This has led to the development of more qualitative approaches to evaluate the strength and quality of outcomes of numerous kinds of research and make comparisons of the results (Denyer et al., 2008; Gill & Johnson, 2010). Many times, this is termed as systematic qualitative review, which is the method of making comparisons on the discoveries of qualitative research (Bryman & Bell, 2015). In other words, a systematic approach process that is strict is applied in article collection, whereas a qualitative review evaluates them.

In systematic review: What does a potential contribution mean?

In regard potential contribution there are many advantages to generate out a systematic review. For instance, through a systematic review, we determine whether an effect is invariable in different studies and what future studies should demonstrate the impact. Various techniques can also be applied to decide which sample characteristic or study-level affects the study's concept. This may include whether the studies carried out in one cultural setup portray significantly different findings contrary to those performed in other cultural setups (Fontana & Frey, 1994; Glaser, 1978; Howell, 2012).

Semi-Systematic Review

The semi-systematic review, also known as the narrative review, entails differently conceptualized subjects researched by different study groups in different fields and hamper the systematic review process(Corbin & Strauss, 1990; Creswell, 2012; Denscombe, 2010)In other words, it is impossible to review every single article that shows some signs of being relevant and thus necessitating the need for a different strategy to be developed (e.g., Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Padgett, 2008; Scott et al., 1993). A good number of articles have been published in the business journal using this approach. Other than generally looking into a subject, a semi-systematic approach often focuses on looking at the progress of a study on a certain chosen field over time and the development of a topic within research norms (Punch, 2009). Generally, the review aims to single out all research norms that are potentially relevant and that have meaning to the studied topics and process the same using meta-narratives rather than measuring the effect size. This is essential in creating an understanding in difficult areas. However, this approach maintains that the research process should have a well-established strategy and should be transparent enough while covering the various types of studies and broad topics as well. This is to ensure that scholars can evaluate the logic behind the arguments for judgment, both from a methodological point of view and the chosen topic.

What Nature of Analysis Can Be Carried Out?

The findings from a semi-systematic review can be analyzed and synthesized in several methods. For instance, content analysis or a thematic is a frequently applied technique. It can generally be described as a method of pointing out, scrutinizing, and coming up with reports concerning patterns that resemble themes in a text (Arnaud & Wasieleski, 2014; Laureani & Antony, 2016; Taylor, 2005). This kind of approach is many times adhered to by qualitative analysis, but there are some exceptions. Integrating a statically meta- analysis approaches with a semi-structure literature collection method(Taylor, 2005). Adolphus, (2011), for example, combined static meta-analysis with a semi structured literature collection process

A Semi-Systematic Examination: What Is The Contribution's Potential?

A potential contribution is a form of analysis that can be used to detect trends, common problems, or theoretical perspectives within research field, as well as to recognize the elements of a theoretical concept or methodology (Mason, 1996; Oates, 2009; Padgett, 2008). For example, providing a timeline of a subject or a historical overview of the ability to monitor a specific research field, establish the state of knowledge, and then develop an agenda for an advanced study may be a possible contribution.

What is it and how we can used it?

Integrative review, also referred to as the critical review approach closely borrows from the semi-structured review approach. The main difference between the two approaches is that integrative review purposes of evaluating, correct and develop the literature on a particular study topic to facilitate the emergence of theoretical frames works and perspectives (Goulding, 2005; Graham & Thomas, 2008; Heath & Cowley, 2004). While integrative reviews are uncommon, they can be found in the business literature (e.g., Babbie, 2015; Blumer, 1969; LeCompte & Goetz, 1982). This type of review is mostly aimed at dealing with emerging or new topics and generally critical topics. Integrative review, with regards to critical topics, establishing an overview on the knowledge base, critically look into it and revise on the concepts used, and advance the foundation of the theory of the particular topic as it develops. In the case of newly emerging topics, the goal is to develop preliminary or initial conceptualization and theoretical framework instead of reviewing old models. Integrative review many times calls for creativity during data collection since the goal is to integrate insights and perspectives from different study areas or research norms rather than covering all the articles published about the topic in question.

What kind of analysis can be applied?

Data analysis in the critical or integrative review has not explicitly been advanced to meet certain standards. While no fixed criteria exist, the primary goal of data scrutiny in integrative reviews is to thoroughly examine and analyze the key ideas and literature, as well as the relationships between issues. It is worth noting that this kind of data analysis calls for researchers to have high levels of skills, for example, superior conceptual thinking, transparency, and documentation of the analysis process (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Locke, 2001).

What does it mean to have a possible contribution in terms of integrative review?

An integrative review should lead to the development of knowledge and theoretical models instead of simply offering a general explanation of the research area. In other words, it should be oriented towards generating a new framework of concepts or theory instead of being historical or descriptive(Punch, 2009; Robson, 2002). In addition, with all of the different ways integrative analysis can be done, researchers must always follow the established reporting conventions on how the study was conducted (Danese et al., 2020). To put it another way, how the integrative analysis was conducted and which papers were chosen must be clearly shown. It is, however, worth noting that, although properly done integrative approaches can lead to a strong and valid contribution to its area of research, they, in most cases, don't have transparency, or they lack a proper combination of research. Frequently, reviews tagged with the name’s integrity reviews are not in a real sense integrative but are study summaries.

Deciding on what approach to use

Usually, it is difficult to decide on the best approach for a review. However, this shouldn't be a big bother since the intended objective of the review and the research question normally dictate the most appropriate technique to apply. A systematic review is the surest and the most suitable approach for article collection since assurance that all relevant data has been taken into account(Coghlan & Brannick, 2014). However, despite all that, this approach calls for a precise research question and may not be appropriate for all types of projects. Such a situation is an avenue in which a semi-systematic review might be resourceful, but again the approach is associated with more drawbacks and lacks the much-needed transparency (Cohen, 1960). The methodology for systematic reviews strictly adheres to high standards and rules and is straightforward. On the other hand, the semi-systematic review procedure needs more advancement with regards to the particular project. Many times, it is up to the researchers to come up with their standards and well-laid plans to ensure that they cover the appropriate literature as well as be able to competently answer their research question while at the same time upholding high levels of transparency to the whole process. It is worth noting that if the right approach is put into use, it could result in a highly effective way of covering broader topics and generally more areas compared to those that a systematic review can tackle (Javadi, 2013). Besides, since there are laser guidelines and standards on which to depend on developing a strategy, integrative reviews are more demanding, which calls for highly skilled researchers and generally more responsibility. This spreads the understanding that the integrative review approach is not the most appropriate approach to apply and that, compared to the systematic review, its rigorousness depreciates a lot. A true and well-conducted integrative review combined with new framework concepts or theory can lead to a lot of significance (Sanchez & Blanco, 2014).

What does the process of carrying out a literature review entail?

Whatever approach is utilized to perform the literature review, multiple processes and judgments must be made in order to produce a review that meets publication standards (for detailed considerations at each phase), see Figure 1. Next, the vital choices and the basic steps are taken into consideration when carrying out a literature review are going to be tackled using four phases which include, 1) strategizing the review, (2) carrying out the review, (3) analyzing the review, and (4) writing up the review. The procedure is a development of a typical experience and is facilitated by numerous guidelines and standards proposed for literature reviews.

Phase 1: Designing the Review

Why should this review be carried out? This is the first question to be asked. What is the essence of the literature review? What kind of literature review would be the most suitable? The most suitable target audience for the review should also be considered when choosing a subject. This is very vital since it helps tell the probability of the review going up to the publication stage and its impact on the study fraternity. Since carrying out a literature review is quite hard work, it is important to ensure that the topic is attractive to both the target audience and the author. Scanning the study area to determine whether there are other pre-existing literature reviews and evaluating the number of research studies to be done is essential as it helps draft and set the objective, scope, and the particular research question that the review seeks to answer. The activities are significant in that they aid in the selection of the most effective strategy. A strict systematic review technique, for example, cannot be accepted or even viable when the analysis attempts to analyze a substantial research topic or numerous research areas. Likewise, an integrative review may not be trusted in an event where the objective of the evaluation entails probing and citing supportive information of the impact of a factor. Instead, a systematic review strategy would be the most appropriate. The outlined purpose should serve as the roadmap for the rest of the review.

Upon identifying the study question and determining an overall review approach, the development of a search strategy for identifying relevant literature should follow next. This involves things like agreeing on search terms, creating a single database, and defining the requirements for inclusion and exclusion. During this stage, various essential decisions are made and these, affect the end quality and the effectiveness of the review. Search keywords are phrases or words that are used to locate books, papers, or research. They should be terms or definitions that are specifically related to the research issue. Depending on the research query or review's purpose, search terms may be narrow or expansive.

Since most previous literature searches result in many articles, it is advisable to develop a strategy that helps identify the relevant ones. The review's inclusion criteria should follow the lead of the research question. The language of the paper, the year of publication, the journal, and the form of the article are all widely used and considered criteria. One essential step in carrying out a review is the decision on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. It is also important to consider providing transparency and logic about all the choices made. The importance of this is that, regardless of the form of the method, the quality of literature is determined by the inclusions of literature and how it was chosen, among other factors. (Tranfieldet al., 2003). With regards to those decisions, a single research question can result in different outcomes and conclusions. For instance, selectively choosing journals, search terms, or even years to limit your research can lead to the absence of studies that would otherwise have been considered relevant, skewed or flawed sample, or even appear to be paradoxical. It can even misguide one to the provision of false evidence concerning a impact or even drawn wrong conclusions regarding gaps in the literature. Since authors must put down information that is transparent enough to enable the audience to understand how literature was singled out, scrutinized, synthesized, and reported, it is advisable to jot down all the decisions to facilitate clarity. This should be done with a high degree of carefulness before carrying out the study.

Phase 2: Carrying out the review

Upon determining the objective of your review, the intended research questions, and the approach to use, the next step is to review reality. To complete the analysis, a pilot test of the protocol and review is required. Through checking the inclusion criteria and search words on a smaller sample size before performing the actual review, the procedure can be fine-tuned before the actual review. It is important to use at least two article section reviewers to uphold high degrees of reliability and quality of the search protocol.

Regarding the scope and nature of a certain review, various ways can be used to select a sample. Different ways may be appropriate depending on the number of articles yielded. For instance, reading in full of every bit of literature as it appears in the search is very useful to reviewers but consumes a lot of time. Alternatively, a reviewer could focus on research findings or methods. The other alternative is to review stages by first going through abstracts and then carrying out your sections before reading full-text articles and then making a final selection. After collecting relevant literature and the initial articles, the next step is to screen the texts to meet the inclusion criteria fully.Additionally, to identify other potentially relevant articles, references in the chosen articles can also be scanned. However, when using the systematic review method, it is not recommended since it requires a stricter protocol. At this stage, the article inclusion and exclusion article should properly be documented.

Phase 3: Analysis

After doing a literature analysis and selecting the final sample, it is critical to determine how the articles will be used to conduct a proper study. After choosing a final sample, the relevant details should be abstracted from each article using standardized methods. The abstracted data can take the form of findings and effects, conceptualization of specific theoretical perspective or idea, or descriptive information such as authors, type of study, and year of publication. It is worth noting that data analysis should be done with adherence to the study question and goal of the particular review, bearing in mind that the form varies. Here, reviewers should be trained to neglect any variances in abstraction and coding (if they are two or more) and closely monitor the data sampling to ensure reliability and quality during the review process. If the goal is to publish in an academic publication, a full description of the degree of dependability among reviewers or the procedure is typically required. On the other hand, it is more difficult when interest pertains to perspectives, historical timelines, or themes in the literature.

Various analysis methods can be used can for different types of reviews. When attempting to publish in an academic publication, a detailed explanation of the level of dependability among reviewers or the procedure is sometimes necessary. This simplifies the method if the information sought is related to sample size, effect size, or population. For instance, it would be more appropriate to use meta-analysis in a case whereby the objective is to assess the supporting information in the loyalty programs. In contrast, where the aim is to synthesize a theoretical structure or model for customer experience, a strict meta-analysis will be inappropriate. Instead, an integrative review ‘oriented analysis technique would be most appropriate.

Phase 4: Review Writing Process

In writing the review, the first thing to do is communicate the motive and the need behind it. The end review article can be designed in various ways depending on the nature of the approach used. It calls for different levels of details and different information types as well. Different guidelines and standards explicitly describe how literature reviews should be structured and reported. These include; the laid down procedures for integrative RAMSES, which is designed for systematic narrative reviews, and PRISMA, designed explicitly for meta-analyses and systematic literature reviews reviews (see Lietz & Zayas, 2010; Marcos-Cuevas, 2006). It is possible to organize review articles in numerous ways (see Caulley, 2007), and some generalizations can also be made (Abdullah A. Alkhoraif et al., 2019; Rashid, 2010; Schwandt, 1998). It is a requirement that all authors follow the specified reporting conventions when describing how the study was carried out. Transparency is very vital in explaining the review designing process as well as the literature collection method. In other words, it is important for the author to clearly state how the literature was singled out, scrutinized, processed, and reported. The details are essential since it allows the reader to evaluate the trustworthiness and the quality of the findings. Thorough literature reviews can have numerous forms of contributions, and hence it stands to be judged with regards to the area in which it wants to contribute. For example, literature evaluations might contain a historical analysis of advancement in a particular field of study. (e.g., Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Nongo & Ikyanyon, 2012), a conceptual framework or classification, a research plan (e.g., Allard & Anderson, 2005; Babbie, 2015; Patton, 2014), or supporting details of an impact (e.g., Berlec et al., 2017).

Evaluating the Quality of a Literature Review

Just like experimental papers, literature reviews should rigorously be evaluated and assessed. The big question, however, is, is this the case? (Bernard, 2011). A good literature review must have both rigor and depth. In other words, it should demonstrate a suitable strategy for article selection, data collection, and insights. It should also offer more than the previous research.

Additionally, it is outlined that the literature review quality should be replicable. In other words, it should be explained in such a manner that allows the target audience to carry out a similar study and hence arrive at relative findings. It is also stated that it is a must for a literature review to be of relevance and usefulness to practitioners and scholars. It is, however, challenging to examine the various types of literature reviews. For this reason, therefore, various leads to assessing articles on literature review have been suggested to assist readers, authors, and editors in examining literature reviews, see Figure 2. They originate from various levels of carrying out a literature review, and they ought to be detailed enough to cater to numerous types of literature reviews.

Most importantly, when examining an individual review, it is a must for specific standards of the type of review in question to be evaluated to weigh whether the review is up to the required depth and rigor. Different criteria may be used, but the first step is to determine if the analysis is systematic, integrative, or semi-systematic. Regardless of the type of review, it is always important to pay close attention to what a study entails the reasons behind it. This is essential since it is the basis for all the differences in the authors' type of conclusion arrived at. Ignoring aspects like some journals, years, or relevant fields of research can have significant implications on the study's outcome and conclusion. What is more, the contribution should always be evaluated about its corresponding field or topic. The fact that one field might be inadequate for another is what contributes useful.

What do you do to have your literature review published?

Even though there is a wide range of arguments explaining how to conduct a literature review, the publishing stage could pose difficulties. This is because researchers tend to commit various common mistakes while carrying out a literature review, and these mistakes often tend to prevent the review from being published. The first common mistake that researchers tend to commit is the failure to explain how the literature review was conducted, which makes it challenge to examine both the review's quality and contribution. Again, reviews may fail to provide specifics about the overall research approach, the weaknesses of the search procedure, the collection, and exclusion of articles, the consistency of the search process, and the lack of information on the analysis on a variety of occasions. Secondly, the move to pare down the sample size to make it as easy to handle as possible is another commonly committed mistake. Actions such as limiting the search process and the number of journals, excluding articles that might have been relevant for the detailed review, and narrowing down the year, contribute to scaling down the available information and subjecting to the danger of failing to be published. Over-limiting the sample is dangerous since it affects the rigor and depth of the review, which can negatively impact its results and contributions. It is undeniable that, at times, scaling down the sample in various ways can turn out to be a good idea, but there must be valid reasons for doing so. Thirdly, another common mistake occurs when the researchers behind a review fail to present and describe the review's results. This is most evident when numerous figures, tables, and graphs are used but are accounted for or explained. This poses a big challenge in finding out their meaning or, generally, the review's findings. Another common mistake under this category is that some researchers spend a lot of time explaining the particular analytical procedure. The method takes a very minimal time describing and discussing the findings of the review and their meanings. This happens for both qualitative and quantitative analyses and makes it hard to judge the article's contributions.

Lastly, another frequently committed omission is that literature reviews often don't make a valuable contribution to the study area. Regardless of the level of excellence and rigorousness in a review article, as long as it doesn't include some new and good contribution, it cannot undergo publication. Literature reviews, in most cases, are descriptive summaries of the research conducted during particular years, containing details such as the topics covered, the number of papers written, the authors represented, the citations examined, and the techniques used without delving into thorough examination. Even though this can be valuable, it is worth noting that usually is not the case and the chances of them being published in any journal are very low. This is unrewarding since, despite the tedious exercise by the researchers to collect many articles and the fail to analyze them properly, they don't give a significant contribution.

There are still ways of simply summarizing the literature and instead of coming up with new and valuable findings that can make a critical contribution to the study area in question. One way to achieve this is to develop a competent study methodology that meets the quality criteria for carrying out literature reviews. Detailed analyses can also be taken into account to make the review paper as good as possible. Based on a literature review protocol, several publications have been successfully published in top-notch business journals (e.g., Kolb, 2012; Liamputtong & Ezzy, 2009). With the exemption of the review quality itself, it appears that there are numerous methods to carry on. One such method is to carry out a literature review and then integrate it with a relevant meta-analysis to come up with evidence of an effect. This technique has successfully been applied in articles published in top-notch journals (e.g., Gray, 1998; Hesse, 1980; Silverman, 2006; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). However, it is worth noting that carrying out a meta-analysis does lead to a guaranteed publication. Instead, the meta-analysis must focus on an interesting and relevant topic. It must also help solve a pre-existing research dilemma and hence develop the knowledge in the study area (e.g., Drisko, 1997; Graham & Thomas, 2008).

Furthermore, machine learning and computer-based analysis reviews have a record of getting high-level interest in business study. Even though text analysis may be a perfect way to contribute, it is still not enough to use these strategies not unless it is thoroughly done and with a clear goal in mind. In most cases, text analysis strategies tend to be highly explanative, and they only offer a general view of topics, networks, or themes while not generating a detailed analysis. Alternatively, a valuable analysis output can, for instance, create a timeline for scrutinizing and predicting where a study area is headed, comparing various related terms, constructing the basis for theory advancement, or even pointing out fundamental knowledge gaps evident in previous research (e.g., (CARPENTER & SUTO, 2008; Charmaz, 2011; Coghlan & Brannick, 2014).

Even though it is rare, a well-conducted literature review capable of coming up with a new theory inclusive of carefully researched propositions or plans on which other researchers can take pride in developing the field is still highly desirable. Bearing in mind that this type of analysis calls for solid analytical skills from researchers and that it is time-consuming, if at all it happens to go through, then it can be of great contribution to the particular research area.

It is, however, worth noting that the above discussed are just a few pathways to contributing the application literature review as a research method. There are many others. It's difficult to come up with a contribution that will contribute to a copyrightable article once you have gathered your information. It is, therefore, necessary to have a specific study question from scratch and then follow the most appropriate approach to find a solution for the study question at hand.

Summary

Literature reviews are essential in the sense that they are the basis of every study. They create guidelines for policy and practice as the foundation for knowledge advancement, availing evidence about an effect. They are capable of engendering new directions and ideas for a specific field if well conducted. They form the basis for future theory and research. It is, however, undeniable that carrying out a literature review and examining its quality can pose difficulties. For that reason, this discussion provides a variety of simple guidelines about how to carry out rigorous and therefore improve literature reviews, in the long run, advance research. In case a study is built on high degrees of accuracy. It is easier to point out actual research gaps rather than carry out the same analysis from scratch to develop a brief and better study questions and hypotheses, thus advancing the research quality as a community.

References

Adolphus, M. (2011). How to carry out a literature review for a dissertation or research paper.

Alkhoraif, Abdullah A., McLaughlin, P., & Rashid, H. (2019). A framework to improve lean implementation by review leveraging aspects of organisational culture: The case of Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Agile Systems and Management, 12(2), 124–179.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Alkhoraif, Abdullah Abdulaziz, & McLaughlin, P. (2021). A methodology to surface aspects of organisational culture to facilitate lean implementation within SMEs. International Journal of Operational Research, 40(1), 52–91.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Allard, F., & Anderson, E. (2005). Ethnography. Encyclopedia of Social Measurement, 1, 833-843.

Altheide, D., & Johnson, J. (1994). Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative research. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 485–499.

Google Scholar

Arnaud, S., & Wasieleski, D. M. (2014). Corporate Humanistic Responsibility: Social Performance Through Managerial Discretion of the HRM. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(3), 313–334.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Babbie, E. (2015). The practice of social research. Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Google Scholar

Berlec, T., Kleindienst, M., Rabitsch, C., & Ramsauer, C. (2017). Methodology To Facilitate Successful Lean Implementation. Strojniški Vestnik - Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 63(7–8), 457.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Bernard, H. R. (2011). Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Rowman Altamira.

Birdi, K., clegg, c., patterson, m., robinson, a., stride, c. B., wall, t. D., & wood, s. J. (2008). The impact of human resource and operational management practices on company productivity: a longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 61(3), 467–501.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Birkinshaw, J., Brannen, M. Y., & Tung, R. L. (2011). From a distance and generalizable to up close and grounded: Reclaiming a place for qualitative methods in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5), 573–581.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theories and Methods. Pearson A & B.

Google Scholar

Boyle, J. (1994). Styles of ethnography. Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods, 2, 159-85.

Google Scholar

Brown, K. A., Willis, P. G., & Prussia, G. E. (2000). Predicting safe employee behavior in the steel industry: Development and test of a sociotechnical model. Journal of Operations Management, 18(4), 445–465.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Bryant, A. (2009). Grounded theory and pragmatism: The curious case of anselm strauss. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 10(3).

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business Research Methods. Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar

CARPENTER, C., & SUTO, M. (2008). Qualitative research for occupational and physical therapists : a practical guide - Google Scholar. The Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 77(1), 6.

Google Scholar

Charmaz, K. (2011). Grounded theory methods in social justice research. SAGE Publications.

Google Scholar

Coghlan, D. (2019). Doing action research in your own organization. Doing Action Research in Your Own Organization, 1-240.

Google Scholar

Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and psychological measurement, 20(1), 37-46.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. In Basics of qualitative research (Vol. 15). Sage.

Creswell, J. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.

Google Scholar

Crofton, C. G., & Dale, B. G. (1996). The Difficulties Encountered in the Introduction of Total Quality Management: A Case Study Examination. Quality Engineering, 8(3), 433–439.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Danese, P., Molinaro, M., & Romano, P. (2020). Investigating fit in supply chain integration: A systematic literature review on context, practices, performance links. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 26(5).

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Denscombe, M. (2010). The good research guide for small-scale social research projects. Psychological Science, 4th edition, 356.

Google Scholar

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Sage.

Google Scholar

Devers, K. (1999). How will we know" good" qualitative research when we see it? Beginning the dialogue in health services research. Health Services Research, 34(5), 1153–1188.

Google Scholar

Drisko, J. W. (1997). Strengthening qualitative studies and reports: Standards to promote academic integrity. Journal of social work education, 33(1), 185-197.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Fontana, A., & Frey, J. (1994). The art of science. The Handbook of Qualitative Research, 36–76.

Google Scholar

Gill, J., & Johnson, P. (2010). Research methods for managers. Sage.

Google Scholar

Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. In Sociology Press.

Goulding, C. (2005). Grounded theory, ethnography and phenomenology. European Journal of Marketing, 39(3/4), 294–308.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Graham, B., & Thomas, K. (2008). Building Knowledge - Developing a Grounded Theory of Knowledge Management for Construction. 7Th European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies, 6(2), 169–176.

Google Scholar

Gray, R. (1998). Organisational culture and the psychological contract: a review of the literature. Kumpania Consultancy.

Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Handbook of qualitative research (Vol. 2). SAGE Publications.

Google Scholar

Heath, H., & Cowley, S. (2004). Developing a grounded theory approach: a comparison of Glaser and Strauss. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 41(2), 141–150.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Hesse, M. B. (1980). Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science. Harvester Press.

Howell, K. (2012). An introduction to the philosophy of methodology. Sage.

Javadi, S. (2013). Performance management in higher education: a grounded theory study [Doctoral dissertation, University of Southampton].

Koenigsaecker, G. (2005). Leadership and the Lean Transformation. Manufacturing Engineering, 135(5), L7–L11.

Kolb, S. M. (2012). Grounded Theory and the Constant Comparative Method : Valid Research Strategies for Educators. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 3(1), 83–86.

Google Scholar

Laureani, A., & Antony, J. (2016). Leadership – a critical success factor for the effective implementation of Lean Six Sigma. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 0(0), 1–22.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

LeCompte, M., & Goetz, J. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 31–60.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Leedy, P. (1997). Pracfical research: Planning and design, 6th edn., Merrill (6th ed). Merrill.

Liamputtong, P., & Ezzy, D. (2009). Qualitative research methods. Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar

Lietz, C., & Zayas, L. (2010). Evaluating qualitative research for social work practitioners. Advances in Social Work, 11(2), 188–202.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Locke, K. (2001). Grounded theory in management research. Sage.

Google Scholar

Marcos-Cuevas, J. (2006). Learning and knowledge processes in an academic-management consulting research programme. The case of the MC Centre. Cranfield University.

Google Scholar

Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative Researching. In Qualitative research. Sage.

Google Scholar

Merriam, S. B. (1997). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. Revised and Expanded from.

Google Scholar

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research : a guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.

Google Scholar

Oates, B. J. (2009). Researching information systems and computing. Sage Publications.

Google Scholar

Padgett, D. (2008). Qualitative methods in social work research. Sage Publications.

Google Scholar

Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice: Integrating Theory and Practice. SAGE Publications.

Google Scholar

Punch, K. F. (2009). Introduction to Research Methods in Education. SAGE Publications.

Google Scholar

Rashid, H. (2010). Human factors effects in helicopter maintenance: proactive monitoring and controlling techniques. Cranfield University. UK.

Google Scholar

Ravikumar, M. M., Marimuthu, K., Parthiban, P., & Zubar, H. A. (2016). Evaluating lean execution performance in Indian {MSMEs} using {SEM} and {TOPSIS} models. International Journal of Operational Research, 26(1), 104.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Robson, C. (2002). Real world research. 2nd. Edition. Blackwell Publishing. Malden.

Sackmann, S. A. (2011). Success Factor: Corporate Culture: Developing a Corporate Culture for High Performance and Long-term Competitiveness, Six Best Practices. Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung.

Google Scholar

Sage. https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=strauss+and+corbin+1998&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5#0

Sanchez, L., & Blanco, B. (2014). Three decades of continuous improvement. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25(9–10), 986–1001.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational Culture and Leadership. Sn Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 3, 25–38.

Google Scholar

Schwandt, T. . (1998). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In The Landscape of Qualitative Research Theories and Issues (Issue Landsc. Qual. Res. Theor. Issues). Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Google Scholar

Scott, P., Haworth, J., Conrad, C., & Neumann, A. (1993). Notes on the classroom as field setting: Learning and teaching qualitative research in higher education. Qualitative Research in Higher Education, 3(6), 3–24.

Silverman, D. (2019). Interpreting qualitative data. Interpreting Qualitative Data, 1-568.

Google Scholar

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Sage publications.

Google Scholar

Taylor, G. R. (2005). Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in Research. University Press of America.

Google Scholar

Thomas, A., Francis, M., John, E., & Davies, A. (2012). Identifying the characteristics for achieving sustainable manufacturing companies. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 23(4), 426–440.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Trochim, W., & Donnelly, J. (2001). Research methods knowledge base.

Google Scholar

Received: 28-Oct-2023, Manuscript No. IJE-24-14195; Editor assigned: 31-Oct-2023, Pre QC No. IJE-24-14195 (PQ); Reviewed: 14-Nov-2023, QC No. IJE-24-14195; Revised: 20-Nov-2023, Manuscript No. IJE-24-14195 (R); Published: 27-Nov-2023