The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Creating High‐Impact Literature Reviews: An Argument for ‘Integrative Reviews’
Abstract
In this article, we argue that integrative literature reviews are among the most useful vehicles for advancing knowledge and furthering research in a topic domain. Integrative literature reviews are strongly anchored in a representative description of a field, but add new insights via a critical analysis and synthesis of the field’s literature. Based on this definition, we explicate the ways that scholars can (1) define the ‘space’ for an integrative review (i.e., how they can justify and bound an integrative review), and (2) synthesize insights gained from the review to develop a new perspective or point of view on the literature. We illustrate these points with several of the most highly‐cited manuscripts published in the Academy of Management Annals. Finally, we close by arguing why these points make integrative reviews most useful for advancing knowledge and furthering research in the area of management.
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
The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004) · Political Psychology · doi:10.4324/9780203505984-16 · Cited by 13,467
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323 · Cited by 7,678
Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples
Torraco, R. J. (2005) · Human Resource Development Review · doi:10.1177/1534484305278283 · Cited by 3,534
10 Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization
Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520802211644 · Cited by 2,571
8 Social Hierarchy: The Self‐Reinforcing Nature of Power and Status
Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520802211628 · Cited by 2,385
Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Using the Past and Present to Explore the Future
Torraco, R. J. (2016) · Human Resource Development Review · doi:10.1177/1534484316671606 · Cited by 2,031
Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward
Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2014.873177 · Cited by 1,764
van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2013.759433 · Cited by 1,302
Cited by
Scientific procedures and rationales for systematic literature reviews (SPAR‐4‐SLR)
Paul, J., Lim, W. M., O’Cass, A., Hao, A. W., & Bresciani, S. (2021) · International Journal of Consumer Studies · doi:10.1111/ijcs.12695 · Cited by 2,364
Why do users trust algorithms? A review and conceptualization of initial trust and trust over time
Cabiddu, F., Moi, L., Patriotta, G., & Allen, D. G. (2022) · European Management Journal · doi:10.1016/j.emj.2022.06.001 · Cited by 138
Change management interventions: Taking stock and moving forward
Hagl, C., Kanitz, R., Gonzalez, K., & Hoegl, M. (2024) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2023.101000 · Cited by 47
Digital platform ecosystems in flux: From proprietary digital platforms to wide-spanning ecosystems
Nerbel, J. F., & Kreutzer, M. (2023) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-023-00625-8 · Cited by 37
Comprehensiveness of circular economy assessments of regions: a systematic review at the macro-level
Van Bueren, B. J. A., Iyer-Raniga, U., Leenders, M. A. A. M., & Argus, K. (2021) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac209c · Cited by 30
Metadata
- Authors
- Elsbach, K. D., & van Knippenberg, D.
- Venue
- Journal of Management Studies
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-05-11
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1277-1289
- ISSN
- 0022-2380 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-6486
- OpenAlex
- W3020095733
- Cited by
- 446
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 22.38
- 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
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.
