The DOI matches its Crossref record; 104 of the 104 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Why and How of the Integrative Review
Abstract
An effective integrative review can provide important insight into the current state of research on a topic and can recommend future research directions. This article discusses different types of reviews and outlines an approach to writing an integrative review. It includes guidance regarding challenges encountered when composing integrative reviews, such as fair representation of different perspectives and synthesizing that knowledge to yield new insights. An integrative review is of unique value among other types of knowledge-synthesis vehicles, such as narrative or systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Because each has distinctive but important approaches to synthesizing empirical knowledge, our protocol for writing integrative reviews is designed to complement these other knowledge-synthesis vehicles to best advance organization science.
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
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
(1999) · Cited by 28,356
Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping
van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3 · Cited by 21,484
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00375 · Cited by 15,386
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
The SAGE handbook of qualitative research
(2005) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.43-1330 · Cited by 10,183
(2000) · University of Maribor digital library (University of Maribor) · Cited by 9,354
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.40 · Cited by 8,390
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
(1982) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511809477 · Cited by 8,240
Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis.
Louis, M. R., Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1983) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392394 · Cited by 5,588
Cited by
Sample Selection in Systematic Literature Reviews of Management Research
Hiebl, M. R. W. (2023) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428120986851 · Cited by 635
Wutich, A., Beresford, M., & Bernard, H. R. (2024) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/16094069241296206 · Cited by 416
AI Literacy in K-12 and Higher Education in the Wake of Generative AI: An Integrative Review
Gu, X., & Ericson, B. J. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.00079 · Cited by 73
Sigfrids, A., Nieminen, M., Leikas, J., & Pikkuaho, P. (2022) · Frontiers in Human Dynamics · doi:10.3389/fhumd.2022.858108 · Cited by 50
“An integrative literature review critically examines research data and integrates it to generate new models or frameworks for examining the selected perspective or literature (Torraco, 2016; Cronin and George, 2020).”
BackgroundA hybrid framework for creating artificial intelligence-augmented systematic literature reviews
Malik, F. S., & Terzidis, O. (2026) · Management Review Quarterly · doi:10.1007/s11301-025-00522-8 · Cited by 28
Metadata
- Authors
- Cronin, M. A., & George, E.
- Venue
- Organizational Research Methods
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2020-07-06
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 168-192
- ISSN
- 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7425
- OpenAlex
- W3038783435
- Cited by
- 677
- References
- 104
- FWCI
- 22.97
- 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: The Why and How of the Integrative Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1094428120935507
- The paper
- Cronin, M. A., & George, E. (2023). The Why and How of the Integrative Review. Organizational Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120935507
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.
