Cited by 119Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsAcademic Writing and PublishingBusiness Strategies and Management Research

Reviewing systematic literature reviews: ten key questions and criteria for reviewers

Open access
Kuckertz, Andreas, Block, Joern·2021·Management Review Quarterly

Abstract

Systematic literature review articles are important for synthesizing knowledge in management and business research. However, to date, we lack clear guidelines how to review such articles. This editorial takes the perspective of the reviewer. It presents ten key questions and criteria that reviewers should ask when reviewing systematic literature reviews.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11301-021-00228-7

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A systematic review brings together all existing research, follows rigorous processes and methods to focus on a specific question/s, integrates and interprets the findings to increase understanding.

    “A systematic review brings together all existing research, follows rigorous processes and methods to focus on a specific question/s integrates and, interprets the findings to increase understanding (Denyer and Tranfield 2009; Fisch and Block 2018; Kuckertz and Block 2021; Tranfield et al. 2003).”

    From Whither compassionate leadership? A systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as Kuckertz and Block 2021

    Sections 3 and 8 describe a systematic search guided by a research question, followed by analysis and synthesis of the selected studies. Section 6 describes inclusion and exclusion criteria used to arrive at a final sample, so the claim that a review brings together *all* existing research overstates what this source says. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A systematic review is more rigorous than literature reviews, is scientific, transparent, replicable and limits the subjectivity and bias of the researchers.

    “It is a methodology that is more rigorous than literature reviews, is scientific, transparent, replicable and limits the subjectivity and bias of the researchers (Kuckertz and Block 2021; Pizzolitto et al. 2022; Tranfield et al.2003).”

    From Whither compassionate leadership? A systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as Kuckertz and Block 2021

    The paper’s introductory passage (listed under Abstract; page unavailable) says systematic literature reviews aim to make literature selection more transparent and minimize subjectivity compared with unsystematic reviews. Section 8 discusses rigorous, method-led analysis, but treats it as something an SLR may employ rather than an automatic property. The copy does not establish that SLRs are inherently more rigorous or replicable, or that they limit researcher bias beyond study selection. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Kuckertz and Block (2021) and Fisch and Block (2018) acknowledge a lack of clear guidelines and provide the criteria for reviewing articles in management and business research.

    “while Kuckertz and Block (2021) and Fisch and Block (2018) acknowledge a lack of clear guidelines and provide the criteria’s for reviewing the articles in management and business research.”

    From Whither compassionate leadership? A systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as Kuckertz and Block 2021

    The Abstract says clear guidelines are lacking and presents ten criteria for reviewing systematic literature review articles in management and business research. The cited paper does not present criteria for reviewing articles generally, as the citing sentence could imply. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The review used multiple databases (EBSCO Discovery Services, Web of Science Core Collections and Scopus) to address triangulation.

    “Secondly, databases such as EBSCO Discovery Services, Web of Science Core Collections and Scopus were searched. In addition, as recommended by Webster and Watson (2002) a search was performed to identify relevant papers from the citations of articles.”

    From Whither compassionate leadership? A systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as Kuckertz and Block 2021

    Section 4 recommends searching more than one database and says triangulation compensates for the limitations of individual databases. It does not say that the citing review searched EBSCO Discovery Services, Web of Science Core Collections, or Scopus; those are the citing authors’ reported choices. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The methodological approach for this study is a systematic review of the research literature concerning digital discretion.

    “The methodological approach for this study is a systematic review of the research literature concerning digital discretion (Kuckertz & Block,2021; Tranfield etal.,2003, Page etal.,2021).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kuckertz, A., & Block, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Hohenheim (DE)
  • Universität Trier (DE)
Corresponding author
Block, Joern
Venue
Management Review Quarterly
Published
2021-07
Volume
71
Issue
3
Pages
519-524
ISSN
  • 2198-1620 (ISSN-L)
  • 2198-1639
OpenAlex
W3186893227
Cited by
119
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 3
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Management Review Quarterly (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Econstor (Econstor) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Universität Trier
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Business Strategies and Management Research
Keywords
systematic reviews, peer review, review questions, evidence synthesis, management research, business research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review