CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,413Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesBusiness Strategies and Management Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 94 of the 94 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Guide to Conducting a Standalone Systematic Literature Review

Open access
Okoli, Chitu·2015·Communications of the Association for Information Systems
DOI 10.17705/1cais.03743
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Many scholars are not well trained in conducting a standalone literature review, a scholarly paper that in its entirety summarizes and synthesizes knowledge from a prior body of research. Numerous guides that exist for information systems (IS) research mainly concentrate on only certain parts of the process; few span the entire process. This paper introduces the rigorous, standardized methodology for the systematic literature review (also called systematic review) to IS scholars. This comprehensive guide extends the base methodology from the health sciences and other fields with numerous adaptations to meet the needs of methodologically diverse fields such as IS research, especially those that involve including and synthesizing both quantitative and qualitative studies. Moreover, this guide provides many examples from IS research and provides references to guides with further helpful details for conducting a rigorous and valuable literature review. Although tailored to IS research, it is sufficiently broad to be applicable and valuable to scholars from any social science field.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.17705/1cais.03743

Cites

94 of 94 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 93 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136.
  2. Alias, M., Zurinah, C., Reiska, A. J., Åhlberg, M., & Novak, J. D. (2008). Concept mapping: A tool for creating a literature review. In Proceedings of the 3 rd International Conference on Concept Mapping.
  3. Anonymous. (1998). "Gray literature" forces new role on librarians (sidebar). Chemical & Engineering News, 76(20), 12.
  4. Myers, P. M. D. (2008). Qualitative research in business & management (illustrated edition.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 601–700 of 1,000

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Okoli, C.
Affiliations
Concordia University (CA)
Corresponding author
Okoli, Chitu
ORCID
Okoli, Chitu
Venue
Communications of the Association for Information Systems
Publisher
Association for Information Systems
Published
2015
Volume
37
ISSN
1529-3181 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.17705/1cais.03743
OpenAlex
W2173536757
Cited by
1,413
References
93
Citations by year
2026: 150 · 2025: 241 · 2024: 250 · 2023: 230 · 2022: 220 · 2021: 162 · 2020: 78 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2
FWCI
2.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
Communications of the Association for Information Systems (publishedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Business Strategies and Management Research
Keywords
systematic reviews, information systems research, research methodology, literature synthesis, mixed methods synthesis, research guidelines, meta-analysis

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