Cited by 75Political Science Research and EducationMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsQualitative Comparative Analysis Research

Systematic reviews in political science: What can the approach contribute to political research?

Open access
Dacombe, Rod·2018·Political Studies Review

Abstract

Recent years have seen the growing use of systematic literature reviews within the social sciences. Despite some reservations over the adoption of an approach originally popularised within clinical and health sciences, the literature in the area has contributed some clear benefits to accounts of existing research. It is surprising, therefore, that political scientists have tended to ignore, or at best marginalise, reviews of this kind. This article outlines a number of features of systematic reviews which might be suitable for the kinds of questions political scientists ask of their data. Throughout, it highlights both the value and the potential complications of the approach, raising a number of questions which should be considered if systematic reviews are to be adopted more widely.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1478929916680641

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dacombe, R.
Affiliations
King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Dacombe, Rod
Venue
Political Studies Review
Published
2017-02-02
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
148-157
ISSN
  • 1478-9299 (ISSN-L)
  • 1478-9302
OpenAlex
W2583456201
Cited by
75
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1
FWCI
4.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Political Studies Review (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Science Research and Education
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
Keywords
systematic reviews, political science methodology, evidence synthesis, evidence-based policy, methodological issues

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