The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reviewing systematic literature reviews: ten key questions and criteria for reviewers
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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).”
From Research on digital discretion—The subjectification of street‐level work in public administration (2025) · cites this paper as Kuckertz & Block,2021
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“We mostly adopt the stages and criteria proposed by Tranfield et al. (2003), Kuckertz and Block (2021), Fisch and Block (2018) and Wolfswinkel et al. (2011).”
From Whither compassionate leadership? A systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as Kuckertz and Block 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.
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 · Cited by 28,164
Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1378 · Cited by 2,379 · cited 1×
“Gusenbauer (2019) and Gusenbauer and Haddaway (2020) evaluate numerous available databases and provide a good starting point for justifying database selection.”
BackgroundThe SAGE handbook of organizational research methods
Buchanan, D., & Bryman, A. E. (2009) · Cited by 2,123
(2009) · Cited by 2,062
Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review
Booth, A., Sutton, A., Clowes, M., & James, M. M.-S. (2022) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781036232009 · Cited by 1,174
Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review
MacDonald, J. (2013) · Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association / Journal de l Association de bilbiothèques de la santé du Canada · doi:10.5596/c13-009 · Cited by 898
Gusenbauer, M. (2019) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2958-5 · Cited by 687
Six tips for your (systematic) literature review in business and management research
Fisch, C., & Block, J. (2018) · Management Review Quarterly · doi:10.1007/s11301-018-0142-x · Cited by 516
Self-citationEight tips and questions for your bibliographic study in business and management research
Block, J., & Fisch, C. O. (2020) · Management Review Quarterly · doi:10.1007/s11301-020-00188-4 · Cited by 272
Self-citationBlock, J., & Kuckertz, A. (2018) · Management Review Quarterly · doi:10.1007/s11301-018-0149-3 · Cited by 86
Self-citationClark, R., Clark, L. A., Raffo, D. M., & Williams, R. I. (2020) · Management Review Quarterly · doi:10.1007/s11301-020-00184-8 · Cited by 73
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Maheshwari, G., Kha, K. L., & Arokiasamy, A. R. A. (2022) · Management Review Quarterly · doi:10.1007/s11301-022-00289-2 · Cited by 304
Digital entrepreneurial ecosystems: A systematic literature review
Bejjani, M., Göcke, L., & Menter, M. (2023) · Technological forecasting & social change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122372 · Cited by 138
Zahlan, A., Ranjan, R. P., & Hayes, D. (2023) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102321 · Cited by 181
Martins, A., Branco, M. C., Melo, P. N., & Machado, C. F. D. S. C. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su14116493 · Cited by 189
Review of enablers and barriers of sustainable business practices in SMEs
Basit, S. A., Gharleghi, B., Batool, K., Hassan, S. S., Jahanshahi, A. A., & Kliem, M. E. (2024) · Journal of Economy and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.ject.2024.03.005 · Cited by 110
Metadata
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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 › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › 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
