The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Contextualizing the twin concepts of systematicity and transparency in information systems literature reviews
Abstract
Recently there has been a great deal of advice published for information systems researchers aiming to conduct standalone literature reviews, and this advice has been, at times, confusing, contradictory and contested. In this opinion paper, we harmonize and resolve some crucial elements of this debate. In our view, literature review articles need to adhere to the same high standards of quality and trustworthiness as other empirical studies. We argue that a systematic approach, accompanied by transparent reporting, is essential for positivist as well as interpretivist reviews, regardless of their specific type, scope and methods. In terms of structure, we first recap the main genres of review articles used by information systems scholars, and present a high-level framework of the steps required to develop a literature review article. For each step, we then explain how the twin concepts of systematicity and transparency should be understood and embedded in the process of developing review papers across a wide range of genres, including positivist aggregative reviews as well as interpretive syntheses using iterative, inductive and abductive approaches.
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.
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
Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework
Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005) · International Journal of Social Research Methodology · doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616 · Cited by 36,742
PRISMA-P Group, Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 · Cited by 26,223
GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables
Guyatt, G., Oxman, A. D., Akl, E. A., Kunz, R., Vist, G., Brozek, J., Norris, S., Falck-Ytter, Y., Glasziou, P., & deBeer, H. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026 · Cited by 10,681
A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems1
Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249410 · Cited by 5,263
Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering—A Systematic Literature Review
Kitchenham, B., Pearl Brereton, O., Budgen, D., Turner, M., Bailey, J., & Linkman, S. (2009) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2008.09.009 · Cited by 4,537
Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples
Torraco, R. J. (2005) · Human Resource Development Review · doi:10.1177/1534484305278283 · Cited by 3,534 · cited 1×
“Prospective IS authors are invited to consult various relevant sources that specifically address writing issues (e.g. Baker, 2000; Torraco, 2005; Short, 2009; Baumeister, 2013).”
BackgroundRealist review - a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions
Pawson, R., Greenhalgh, T., Harvey, G., & Walshe, K. (2005) · Journal of Health Services Research & Policy · doi:10.1258/1355819054308530 · Cited by 3,190
Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies
Deeks, J., Dinnes, J., D'Amico, R., Sowden, A., Sakarovitch, C., Song, F., Petticrew, M., & Altman, D. (2003) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta7270 · Cited by 2,907
Greenhalgh, T., & Peacock, R. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38636.593461.68 · Cited by 2,045 · cited 1×
“Drawing on different search methods and databases to access a variety of sources ensures that most relevant articles are retrieved for a high-quality literature review (Conn et al, 2003; Greenhalgh & Peacock, 2005).”
BackgroundThe impact of electronic word-of-mouth communication: A literature analysis and integrative model
Cheung, C. M. K., & Thadani, D. R. (2012) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.06.008 · Cited by 2,005
Cited by
The dark sides of people analytics: Reviewing the perils for organisations and employees
Giermindl, L. M., Strich, F., Christ, O., Leicht-Deobald, U., & Redzepi, A. (2022) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1080/0960085x.2021.1927213 · Cited by 331
Fitbit-based interventions for healthy lifestyle outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis
Ringeval, M., Wagner, G., Denford, J., Paré, G., & Kitsiou, S. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/23954 · Cited by 225
Self-citationTemplier, M., & Paré, G. (2018) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1080/0960085x.2017.1398880 · Cited by 180
Self-citationBlockchain Technology in Business Organizations: A Scoping Review
Li, Y., Marier-Bienvenue, T., Perron-Brault, A., Wang, X., & Paré, G. (2018) · Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · doi:10.24251/hicss.2018.565 · Cited by 59
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Paré, G., Tate, M., Johnstone, D., & Kitsiou, S.
- Venue
- European Journal of Information Systems
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2016-11
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 493-508
- ISSN
- 0960-085X (ISSN-L)
- 1476-9344
- OpenAlex
- W2523582669
- Cited by
- 179
- References
- 20
- FWCI
- 8.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Contextualizing the twin concepts of systematicity and transparency in information systems literature reviews. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1057/s41303-016-0020-3
- The paper
- Paré, G., Tate, M., Johnstone, D., & Kitsiou, S. (2016). Contextualizing the twin concepts of systematicity and transparency in information systems literature reviews. European Journal of Information Systems. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41303-016-0020-3
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
