Lim, 2022, How To Systematic Review

The Service Industries Journal
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fsij20
Advancing knowledge through literature reviews:

‘what’, ‘why’, and ‘how to contribute’
Weng Marc Lim, Satish Kumar & Faizan Ali
To cite this article: Weng Marc Lim, Satish Kumar & Faizan Ali (2022) Advancing knowledge
through literature reviews: ‘what’, ‘why’, and ‘how to contribute’, The Service Industries Journal,
42:7-8, 481-513, DOI: 10.1080/02642069.2022.2047941
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2022.2047941
Published online: 15 Mar 2022.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 8403
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 77 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fsij20
THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL
2022, VOL. 42, NOS. 7–8, 481–513
https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2022.2047941
Advancing knowledge through literature reviews: ‘what’,

‘why’, and ‘how to contribute’
通过文献综述提升知识：撰写不同类型文献综述的‘什么’,‘为什么’和‘如
何贡献’
a,b b,c d
Weng Marc Lim , Satish Kumar and Faizan Ali
a
School of Business, Law and Entrepreneurship, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Australia;
b
Faculty of Business, Design and Arts, Swinburne University of Technology, Kuching, Malaysia; cDepartment
of Management Studies, Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur, Jaipur, India; dMuma College of
Business, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Literature review is part and parcel of scholarly research. Though Received 26 January 2022
many literature review guides are available, they remain limited Accepted 23 February 2022
because they do not adequately account for the different types
KEYWORDS
of literature review. Noteworthily, literature reviews can manifest Contribution to knowledge;
as part of conceptual or empirical studies, or as independent bibliometric review;
studies, in which the latter may be curated in various ways. conceptual review;
Moreover, despite its importance and popularity, literature framework review; hybrid
reviews, particularly as independent studies, continue to attract review; literature review;
unfair criticism and remain scarce in service research. To address meta-analysis; meta-
the aforementioned gaps, this article endeavors to provide an analytical review; meta-
overview and guidelines for writing literature reviews. Specifically, systematic review; method
this article explains (1) what a literature review is and is not, (2) review; systematic review;
thematic review; theory
why literature reviews are valuable, and (3) how to conduct a review
literature review, as well as (4) the areas of service research and (5)
the innovative ways in which literature reviews can be curated in 关键词
the future. 知识贡献、文献计量综
述、概念综述、框架综
摘要述、混合综述、文献
文献综述是学术研究的重要组成部分。尽管有很多文献综述指综述、元分析、元分析综
南，但它们仍然有限，因为它们没有充分考虑不同类型的文献综述、元系统综述、方法
述。值得注意的是，文献综述可以表明为概念研究或实证研究的综述、系统综述、专题综
述、理论综述。
一部分，它也可以表明为独立研究，后者可以以各种方式进行策
划。此外，尽管其重要性和流行性，但文献综述，尤其是作为独
立研究的文献综述，继续受到不公平的批判，在服务研究中仍然
稀缺。为了解决上述差距，本文试图为撰写文献综述提供一个概
述和指南。具体来说，本文解释了（1）什么是文献综述，什么
不是文献综述，（2）为什么文献综述有价值，（3）如何进行文
献综述，以及（4）服务研究领域和（5）未来文献综述的创新方
式。
CONTACT Satish Kumar skumar.dms@mnit.ac.in Faculty of Business, Design and Arts, Swinburne University of
Technology, Jalan Simpang Tiga, Kuching, Sarawak 93350, Malaysia; Department of Management Studies, Malaviya
National Institute of Technology Jaipur, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302017, India
This article has undergone refinements, which have been updated in the online version. Please see Correction (https://
doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2023.2198074)
© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
482 W. M. LIM ET AL.
Introduction
The world is in need of new ideas to address its growing issues – be it unresolved pro-
blems or untapped opportunities. Crucial to the development of new ideas is the
pursuit of new research, which can be applied when it is conducted to evaluate and
solve practical issues (e.g. consultancy or in-house studies on needs analysis, performance
evaluation, and strategy and solution development), or scholarly when it is performed to
create new knowledge in the field (e.g. conceptual studies to develop new concepts, fra-
meworks, models, taxonomies, or theories; empirical studies to discover and establish new
concepts and relationships; and review studies to present current state of knowledge,
uncover knowledge gaps, and provide knowledge-advancing ways forward) (Table 1).
Of particular interest in this article is literature reviews, which is a part of scholarly
research. Many scholars have developed guidelines to help other scholars develop litera-
ture reviews across various fields, such as business (Snyder, 2019), management (Torraco,
2005; Tranfield et al., 2003), and marketing (Palmatier et al., 2018). More recently, scholars
have also contributed authoritative guides on the different types of literature reviews
such as those leveraging on bibliometric analysis (Donthu, Kumar, Mukherjee, et al.,
2021) and meta-analysis (Grewal et al., 2018). They have also established review protocols
such as the Scientific Procedures and Rationales for Systematic Literature Reviews (SPAR-
4-SLR) (Paul, Lim, et al., 2021). These guides are useful, as evidenced by their influence and
impact, ranging from hundreds to thousands of citations.
Notwithstanding the contributions of past literature review guides, this article argues
that a new guide for literature reviews is necessary because past guides often (1) present a
definite or fixed process to conduct a literature review, and (2) assume that the same
process is applicable to all types of literature review. Specifically, this article contends
that ‘(1)’ and ‘(2)’, when taken collectively, is problematic because (3) it is not pragmatic
to expect, for example, a literature review of a conceptual or an empirical study to adopt
an established review protocol (e.g. SPAR-4-SLR), and (4) it is sub-standard to expect, for
example, a systematic review study to only adopt a set of generic principles (e.g. general
phases, stages, or steps).
Table 1. Types of research.

Type Sub-type Purpose and contribution
Applied Consultancy Evaluate and solve practical issues:
In-house . Needs analysis
. Performance evaluation
. Strategy and solution development
Scholarly Conceptual Develop:
. New concepts
. New frameworks
. New models
. New taxonomies
. New theories
Empirical Discover and establish:
. New concepts
. New relationships
Review Evaluate and solve knowledge issues:
. Present current state of knowledge
. Uncover knowledge gaps
. Provide knowledge-advancing ways forward
THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 483
Moreover, the contribution of independent literature reviews is often challenged

(Wong, 2021) despite its importance and popularity. On the one hand, critiques of inde-
pendent literature reviews are rarely published in formal avenues (e.g. journals). Yet, they
are commonly and vigorously debated through informal platforms (e.g. TRINET – Tourism
Research Information Network Listserv Emails), where many prominent scholars have
questioned the value of such reviews, some to the extent of ‘discriminating’ and
‘writing off’ the contribution of independent literature reviews (e.g. fixed mindset of
editors not accepting independent literature reviews and reviewers recommending rejec-
tions when assigned to such submissions). On the other hand, evidential support for inde-
pendent literature reviews is multifold, as seen by (1) establishment of journals dedicated
to literature reviews (e.g. Academy of Management Review, International Journal of Man-
agement Reviews), (2) editors calling for independent literature reviews (e.g. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science – e.g. Palmatier et al., 2018), (3) special issues on inde-
pendent literature reviews (e.g. ‘Thematic Literature Reviews, Bibliographic, and Meta-
Analyses in Marketing and International Business’ in Journal of Business Research – e.g.
Paul, Merchant, et al., 2021), and (4) citation influence and impact of independent litera-
ture reviews (e.g. International Journal of Management Reviews has an impact factor of
13.419 and is ranked second out of 153 in ‘business’ and third out of 226 in ‘management’
as per 2020 Clarivate Analytics Journal Citation Reports).
Therefore, this article highlights that a paradox exists between ‘the process’, ‘the type’,
and ‘the value’ of literature reviews. Noteworthily, addressing this paradox is important to
defend against unfair criticisms and overcome the carnage of substandard research (Lim,
2022; Neumann, 2012) involving literature reviews (Wong, 2021), and urgent to support
new research, which have proliferated exponentially during, and very likely after, the cor-
onavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic (Donthu, Kumar, Mukherjee, et al., 2021; Lim,
2022; Prentice et al., 2021).
Nevertheless, literature reviews, as an independent study, in service research remains
scarce. This is evident in Figure 1, which indicates the low number of review studies that
exist in mainstream service journals. There are several possible reasons for this obser-
vation. First, mainstream service journals have a historical record of favoring empirical
research (Donthu, Kumar, Ranaweera, Sigala, et al., 2021; Furrer et al., 2020), though the
Figure 1. Distribution of reviews in mainstream service journals.

Note: A list of documents classified as ‘reviews’ for mainstream service journals was searched and retrieved from Web of
Science on 22 January 2022 (n = 113). The full text of each document was downloaded and read. The list of documents
was then subjected to data cleaning (i.e. removal of duplicates (n = 5), erroneous classification of conceptual and empiri-
cal articles as ‘reviews’ (n = 37), and documents without review protocol or procedure (n = 12)). The final distribution of
documents qualified as ‘reviews’ (i.e. with review protocol or procedure) are reported in this figure (n = 59).
split between quantitative and qualitative research designs appear to be equal in some
journals (e.g. The Service Industries Journal; Viglia et al., 2022). Second, unlike the research
methods for empirical studies that are relatively well established (e.g. grounded theory,
structural equation modeling), the research methods for review studies in business
have only received recent attention (Paul, Lim, et al., 2021). Third, unlike the high level
of awareness on the potential value of empirical studies, many scholars remain
unaware about the promising value of review studies. Noteworthily, no literature
review guide, to date, can be found in mainstream service journals, which could have con-
tributed to the three aforementioned reasons explaining the scarcity of review studies in
service research. Thus, a new guide that also stimulates new literature reviews for main-
stream service journals is relevant to address the scarcity of literature reviews in service
research.
Given the aforementioned considerations, the goals of this article are twofold: first, to
address the literature review paradox by discussing the importance of literature reviews
to the body of knowledge and how literature reviews could make a contribution to knowl-
edge, and second, to stimulate new reviews by shedding light on the areas of service
research and the innovative ways in which literature reviews can be curated in the
future. Therefore, this article provides an overview and guidelines for writing a literature
review that prospective service scholars can consider and rely upon to develop pragmatic
and rigorous reviews that contribute to knowledge in the future (Table 2).
Noteworthily, this article clarifies that literature reviews – as part of conceptual and
empirical studies and as independent studies – play an important role in advancing the
body of knowledge. Specifically, literature reviews play a supporting role to conceptual
and empirical studies in the field by explaining (1) the key concepts of the study, including
differences with closely-related or similar concepts, and (2) the basis, rationales, or reasons
for any proposition or hypothesis for the study. Whereas, literature reviews play a facilitat-
ing role to future studies in the field by (1) presenting an overview of the performance,
knowledge, and major streams of research in the field, (2) charting the progress of the
field by highlighting noteworthy gaps involving conflicting or inconclusive findings,
emerging areas, and underexplored areas, and (3) suggest theoretical, contextual, and
methodological opportunities and solutions as ways forward for the field.
The rest of this article is organized as follows. First, this article articulates what a litera-
ture review is and is not. Next, this article discusses why literature reviews are valuable. Fol-
lowing that, this article explains how to conduct a literature review. Finally, this article
sheds light on the future of literature reviews in terms of the areas of service research
and the innovative ways in which literature reviews can be curated in the future.
What a literature review is and is not

A literature review is an overview of scholarly research in a specific field, which can be
undertaken in two instances: first, as part of a conceptual or an empirical study, and
second, as an independent study (Table 3).
As part of a conceptual or an empirical study, the literature review essentially serves as
the theoretical background of a study, which connects readers to key areas of existing
knowledge, thereby helping them to understand the key concepts along with the basis
for any proposition or hypothesis among those concepts in that study. Here, the literature
Table 2. Mapping the value of the present article.

Contribution
Areas of
service Innovative
What a Why How to research for ways for
literature literature conduct a future future
review is reviews are literature literature literature
Consideration Motivation and is not valuable review reviews reviews
Necessity Past guides often ✓ ✓
present a one-size-fits-
all process that is
assumed to be
applicable to all types
of literature review,
which is problematic
due to the different
purpose of different
types of literature
review.
Not pragmatic to expect ✓ ✓
a literature review in
conceptual or
empirical studies to
adopt an established
review protocol as the
literature review is not
the main contribution
or focus of such
studies.
Not sufficient for ✓ ✓
independent literature
reviews to only adopt
a set of generic
principles, which may
lead to a lack of
transparency and
replicability.
Unfair criticisms against ✓ ✓ ✓
independent literature
reviews.
Importance Substandard research, ✓ ✓ ✓
including literature
reviews, is a problem.
Urgency New research, including ✓ ✓ ✓
literature reviews, are
growing
exponentially.
Relevance Literature reviews in ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
service research
remain scarce.
Note: Each tick (✓) indicates the contribution that addresses the motivation considered for the present article.
review plays a peripheral role, acting as the foundation of knowledge to support the
development of a specific study.
As an independent study, the literature review takes center stage in and thus represents
the main contribution of the study. Here, the literature review fundamentally serves as an
in-depth retrospective of a field, giving readers a bird’s eye view of the state of the body of
knowledge in that field along with its progress and potential ways forward.
Regardless of whether it is undertaken as part of a conceptual or an empirical study or
as an independent study, a literature review is not intended to create new knowledge.
Table 3. Characteristics of a literature review.

Characteristic As part of a conceptual or an empirical study As an independent study
Role . Peripheral or supporting role to the main study. . Central role as the main study.
What it is . Support the development of new knowledge . Facilitate the development of new knowledge
for a specific study. for a specific field.
o Explain the key concepts of the study. o Provide an overview of the field.
o Explain the basis for any proposition or o Chart the progress of and ways forward for
hypothesis for the study. the field.
What it is not . Creation of new knowledge. . Creation of new knowledge.
Instead, a literature review is intended to consolidate existing knowledge to support and

facilitate the development of new knowledge for a specific study (i.e. when the literature
review is a part of a conceptual or an empirical study) or a specific field (i.e. when the lit-
erature review is an independent study).
Why literature reviews are valuable

The value of a literature review can be demonstrated in five ways: necessity, importance,
relevance, urgency, and contribution (Table 4).
First, literature reviews are valuable when they are necessary.
As part of conceptual or empirical studies, literature reviews are necessary when the
review provides theoretical support to justify the need to engage in the study, as well
as to understand the logic behind any proposition or hypothesis. This is the fundamental
reason why literature reviews are part and parcel of scholarly research – without literature
reviews, the need and logic behind conceptual and empirical scholarly research become
ambiguous.
As independent studies, literature reviews are necessary to take stock of the field (e.g.
major themes) in order to chart the future trajectory of that field. This helps prospective
scholars interested in that field to better position future research in terms of which exact
stream(s) out of the many streams of research in that field that they wish to extend, as well
as the extent of novelty of the new research against the contributions and gaps of existing
research. Without literature reviews, scholars in the field will either end up engaging in
duplicative efforts to review the same literature, or worst, ‘cherry picking’ or selectively
using studies to justify the novelty of their supposedly new research.
Second, literature reviews are valuable when they are important.
As part of conceptual or empirical studies, literature reviews are important because
they give credit to past scholars. Crediting past scholars whose work have contributed
to the body of knowledge that future scholars rely upon is part and parcel of ethical prac-
tice in scholarly research – otherwise, new scholars may risk committing plagiarism. More-
over, crediting past scholars can also prevent future scholars from engaging in
duplication, wherein the former acts as a prevention mechanism for the latter.
As independent studies, literature reviews are important because they enable new
scholars (e.g. early-career researchers, higher degrees by research or master and doctoral
candidates) to acquire a rapid yet comprehensive understanding of the field. They also
enable established scholars to gain an updated understanding of the current progress
and state of that field, and in the midst of doing so, alleviate the potential of expertise
Table 4. Value of literature reviews.

What to How to demonstrate
demonstrate As part of a conceptual or an empirical study As an independent study
Necessity . Explain that theoretical support is required . Explain the current state and progress of the
to justify the need to engage in the study. field.
. Explain that theoretical support is required . Explain how review insights can help future
to explain the logic behind any proposition research to better position their research (e.g.
or hypothesis. exact stream(s) of research being extended,
extent of novelty of new research against past
research).
. Explain how review insights can help future
research to avoid duplicative efforts and ‘cherry
picking’ studies.
Importance . Explain the opportunity to give credit to past . Explain the benefits to new scholars (e.g. a
scholars. rapid yet comprehensive understanding of the
. Explain the need to avoid plagiarism. field).
. Explain the need to avoid research . Explain the benefits to established scholars (e.g.
duplication. an updated understanding of the current state
and progress of the field while mitigating
expertise bias or illusory superiority).
Relevance . Demonstrate the appropriate use of theories . Explain how the emerging or mature field
and past findings. continues to be widely practiced.
. Explain the review’s relevance to the journal’s
scope and target audience.
Urgency . Explain the magnitude of the studied . Explain the absence or limitation of past
phenomenon in practice. reviews (e.g. limited and outdated coverage
. Explain the limitations of past and recent and review corpus).
research to explain the studied . Explain the growth (i.e. how fast) and size (i.e.
phenomenon. how large) of the field.
Contribution . Explain the key concepts of the study . Present an overview of the field (e.g.
(including differences with closely-related or performance evaluation, integrated mapping of
similar concepts, if relevant). knowledge, major research streams).
. Explain the basis for any proposition or . Chart the progress of the field (i.e. identify
hypothesis for the study (i.e. rationales, noteworthy gaps – e.g. conflicting or
reasons). inconclusive findings, emerging areas,
underexplored areas).
. Propose ways forward for the field (i.e. suggest
opportunities and solutions – e.g. theoretical,
contextual, methodological).
bias or illusory superiority (i.e. bias arising from one’s overestimation of one’s own
expertise).
Third, literature reviews are valuable when they are relevant.
As part of conceptual or empirical studies, literature reviews are relevant when they
provide appropriate information to support the proposals in the study. For example, a lit-
erature review is relevant when it includes a theory that is appropriate for the study, as
well as past findings that are clearly related to the proposed relationships, whereas a lit-
erature review is irrelevant when it includes a theory that does not explain or is only par-
tially utilized to explain the study (e.g. using the theory of planned behavior to explain
reasoned action behavior without studying behavioral control), as well as past findings
that relate to concepts outside the proposed relationships (e.g. using post-purchase
findings [e.g. satisfaction → re-purchase intention] to explain pre-purchase proposals
[e.g. attitude → purchase intention]).
As independent studies, literature reviews are relevant when they take stock of either
an emerging or a mature field that continues to be widely practiced (e.g. online and phys-
ical retailing), and when they are submitted to an outlet that welcomes contributions
from that field (e.g. submitting a literature review on artificial intelligence for service deliv-
ery to a mainstream service journal). In other words, literature reviews are irrelevant when
they provide retrospective insights for a field that has declined or phased out (e.g. first,
second, and third industrial revolution), and when they are submitted to an outlet
outside the scope of interest (e.g. submitting a literature review on artificial intelligence
in manufacturing to a mainstream service journal).
Fourth, literature reviews are valuable when they are urgent.
As part of conceptual or empirical studies, literature reviews can demonstrate urgency
for the need of the study when they highlight the magnitude of the studied phenomenon
in practice (e.g. the severity of COVID-19), as well as the limitations of past (e.g. past crisis
did not involve a global lockdown) and recent (e.g. customer and employee insights from
manufacturing industries cannot be extrapolated or generalized to customers and
employees in service industries due to inherent differences between both categories of
industries) research to explain the studied phenomenon.
As independent studies, literature reviews can demonstrate urgency for the need of
the review when they highlight the absence or limitation of past consolidation efforts
in the field in tandem with how rapid the field is growing. While few scholars hold the
first-mover advantage to conduct the seminal literature review for the field, other scholars
could still demonstrate the urgency for a new literature review of the field by highlighting
the limitations of past literature reviews, for example, limited (e.g. insights on a specific
service industry only) and outdated (e.g. insights prior to COVID-19) coverage and
review corpus (e.g. tens to low hundreds when the field actually has high hundreds to
thousands of studies). The sense of urgency could also be heightened by highlighting
how large the field is in practice and how quickly the field is proliferating in its research,
and thus, showing that continued reliance on incomplete knowledge from literature
reviews with limited and outdated coverage and review corpus may be detrimental to
the field’s ability to respond to current issues and its overall progress.
Fifth, literature reviews are valuable when they support and facilitate the development
of new knowledge (contribution).
As part of conceptual and empirical studies, literature reviews support the develop-
ment of new knowledge for specific studies. In this regard, literature reviews for concep-
tual and empirical studies should clarify the key concepts of the study, particularly in
terms of its conceptualization (definition, core tenets), and if relevant, its differences
with closely-related or similar concepts to avoid any potential confusion. They should
also provide clear indication of the rationales and reasons that support the logic of any
proposition or hypothesis for the study.
As independent studies, literature reviews facilitate the development of new knowl-
edge for specific fields, and thus, they should strive to deliver three major insights.
The first major insight pertains to an overview of the field, which could manifest in the
form of an evaluation of the productivity and impact of research, an integrated mapping
of knowledge (e.g. antecedents, decisions, outcomes, theories, contexts, methods), and/
or the revealing of the major research themes or streams in that field. However, like
empirical studies, where providing comprehensive qualitative and quantitative infor-
mation in a single study is rarely possible, it is not always possible for independent lit-
erature reviews to present all information about the field in a single review.
Noteworthily, the extent of the overview would depend on the size of the field and
the limitation imposed by publication outlets, wherein the coverage of information is

expected to be more extensive for smaller (e.g. tens to low hundreds) than larger
(e.g. high hundreds to thousands) fields, and for higher (e.g. 50 pages, 12,000 words)
than lower (e.g. 25 pages, 6,000 words) page or word limit by publication outlets. There-
fore, scholars who review large fields and/or may be impacted by the limitation imposed
by publication outlets could select one or more of the appropriate types of review to
justify the scope of their independent literature review, which will be discussed in the
next section.
The second major insight pertains to the progress of the field. Unlike the overview of the
field, which tends to be descriptive, the information about the progress of the field is
analytical. Specifically, scholars should identify noteworthy gaps that build upon the over-
view of the field. Such gaps could manifest in the form of conflicting or inconclusive
findings, emerging areas, and underexplored areas, among others. Noteworthily, charting
the progress of the field is an analytical insight and a unique contribution of independent
literature reviews that depends on the descriptive insights from the overview of that field.
That is to say, without descriptive insights, the development of analytical insights would
not be possible. This line of reasoning is in line with the building blocks of knowledge,
whereby the emergence of higher-order knowledge is dependent on the development
and maturity of lower-order knowledge (Lim et al., 2021).
The third major insight pertains to the ways forward for the field. This is arguably the
most exciting part of independent literature reviews. When the first and second major
insights are well presented, the authors of independent literature reviews will be in a
good position to develop grounded, meaningful, and pragmatic suggestions that pro-
spective scholars can reliably rely upon for thoughtful guidance and inspiration on poten-
tially fruitful directions to advance the field (i.e. future research that answers the logical
call for new research suggested by prior literature reviews, provided that the call
remains unanswered or inadequately answered). There are three avenues that authors
of independent literature reviews can leverage to curate a purposeful agenda for
future research. The first avenue is the theoretical avenue, where concepts, theories, or
relationships that are contentious (e.g. due to conflicting or inconclusive findings) or
potentially valuable (e.g. necessary, important, relevant, urgent) but remain underex-
plored (e.g. lack of conceptual clarity or theoretical integration) or unexplored (e.g. no
presence in the literature) could be proposed for further investigation. The second
avenue is the contextual avenue, where complex and underrepresented contexts (e.g.
countries, industries, populations) that deserve attention are highlighted. The third
avenue is the methodological avenue, where suggestions are made with regards to the
research design (i.e. conceptual, empirical, review), data (i.e. primary, secondary), and
analytical techniques (e.g. quantitative, qualitative, experimental) that can be utilized to
strengthen the breadth and depth of knowledge and evidence in the field (see Lim
et al., 2021).
Notwithstanding the five aforementioned ways (i.e. necessity, importance, relevance,
urgency, and contribution) that can be used to demonstrate the value of literature
reviews, it is also essential to understand the nature of contribution for the different
types of scholarly research to the body of knowledge. Having this understanding is valu-
able because it can be used to avoid falling into the bandwagon of and to defend against
contribution-related critiques hurled toward any type of scholarly research. Noteworthily,
there are five different types of scholarly research that can be sequentially organized
according to their roles as part of their collective contribution to the body of knowledge:
independent literature reviews (step one), conceptual studies (step two), qualitative studies
(step three), quantitative non-experimental studies (step four), and quantitative experimen-
tal studies (step five) (Table 5).
Independent literature reviews are foundational studies that shed light on the gaps
that exist in a field. Unlike conceptual and empirical studies where gaps are not a
product of a full-fledged research and merely selected on the basis of its relevance
to the argument for the study, the gaps in which independent literature reviews high-
light are a product of research. Noteworthily, independent literature reviews rely on a
dataset consisting of a literature corpus curated based on a detailed and systematic
review protocol for assembling (identifying, acquiring), arranging (organizing, purifying),
and assessing (evaluating, reporting) relevant literature in the field (Paul, Lim, et al.,
2021). Thus, the gaps presented in independent literature reviews are a result of a syn-
thesized understanding of a field. As independent studies, literature reviews are as rig-
orous as conceptual and empirical studies when they establish trustworthiness (i.e.
credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability) and engage in triangulation
of findings (e.g. diverse data types). More importantly, it is only when independent lit-
erature reviews are well done that conceptual and empirical studies are in the strongest
position to contribute the insights that they are capable of rigorously producing to the
body of knowledge. That is to say, without independent literature reviews, the assertion
of gaps may not be entirely true because of the lack of a systematic research to identify
those gaps. In this regard, the different types of scholarly research are clearly not in
competition but rather in collaboration with one another in making a strong, collective
contribution to the body of knowledge, which may otherwise be weaker in the absence
of any one type of scholarly research (e.g. false gaps and replications without indepen-
dent literature reviews, replications without conceptual and qualitative studies, unver-
ified relationships without quantitative non-experimental studies, and untested
recommendations without quantitative experimental studies).
How to conduct a literature review

Past scholars have recommended different albeit similar ways to conduct a literature
review. Nevertheless, many scholars may be left confused with the development of the
different approaches (i.e. methodology) and types (i.e. product) of literature reviews.
Therefore, this section is dedicated to clarifying how scholars can go about conducting
different types of literature reviews using different approaches. The section begins with
a discussion of the different approaches to literature reviews, followed by a dedicated dis-
cussion for each type of literature review.
Approaches to literature reviews

Approaches to literature reviews as part of conceptual or empirical studies
Many approaches to literature reviews exist. However, these approaches are usually
meant for literature reviews as independent studies rather than as part of conceptual
or empirical studies. To address this gap, this article presents a logical and pragmatic
Table 5. Nature of contribution to knowledge for the different types of scholarly research.
Empirical
Type of scholarly research → / Quantitative
Nature of contribution ↓ Literature review Conceptual Qualitative Non-experimental Experimental
What is the nature of the Gaps (synthesis of overview, Ideas Existential Association (direct effect), conditional Causal (control for cause
contribution (insights) progress, ways forward) (mediating and moderating effect) and effect)
When does the contribution First Second Third Fourth Fifth
happen (role)
Who makes the contribution Integrators Philosophers Explorers Statisticians Experimenters
happen (person in charge)
Where to get the Literature sources Literature sources Non-literature primary (e.g. interviews) Non-literature primary (e.g. surveys) Non-literature primary (e.g.
contribution (evidence) or secondary (e.g. news articles) or secondary (e.g. historical lab, field) sources
sources records) sources
How to establish confidence Trustworthiness, triangulation Domain theory, Trustworthiness, triangulation Objectivity, validity, reliability, Objectivity, validity,
of the contribution (rigor) method theory triangulation reliability, triangulation

So what if the contribution False gaps and replications Replications Replications Unverified relationships Untested recommendations
is missing (problems)
Note: Trustworthiness can be established by demonstrating credibility (i.e. internal validity or truth of findings – e.g. expert check, prolonged period of consideration or engagement, triangu-
lation), transferability (i.e. external validity or generalizability of findings – e.g. existence across multiple contexts), dependability (i.e. reliability or consistency of findings – e.g. audit trail
replicability, triangulation), and confirmability (i.e. objectivity or degree of bias or neutrality of findings – e.g. reflection, triangulation). Triangulation can be established when findings
remain consistent across multiple proxies (e.g. data type). Domain theory involves establishing the substantive area of knowledge in a domain or field, whereas method theory involves estab-
lishing the system for studying issues of the domain theory. Objectivity can be established by using guiding principles (e.g. statistics), whereas validity and reliability can be established by
demonstrating that minimum statistical thresholds are met and maximum statistical thresholds are not breached.
491
three-pronged approach that scholars can adopt, disclose, and rely upon to conduct lit-
erature reviews that are a part of conceptual or empirical studies (Table 6).
The first section is theoretical background, whose goal is to identify and explain an appro-
priate theory (or set of theories) that can guide the study. This section is relevant for deduc-
tive as opposed to inductive reasoning in conceptual, qualitative, and quantitative
studies.1 A theory is an idea or a set of principles that can be used to provide a foundational
explanation (e.g. reasoned action) about a specific phenomenon (e.g. online shopping) –
the advanced explanation is provided by the study itself when the theory is contextualized
and extended. An appropriate theory is one that is relevant in its entirety for the study. For
example, the theory of planned behavior is relevant for a study that considers aspects of
attitude, subjective norm, behavioral control, and behavior (intention and/or actual),
whereas the same theory is irrelevant for a study that considers all the same aspects
except behavioral control, in which the theory of reasoned action would have been a
more appropriate theory. More importantly, scholars should explain in this step
(1) the definition, core tenets, and importance of the theory,

(2) the findings of the theory when used in existing studies (and irregularities, if any),
(3) the way in which the theory guides the current study, and
(4) the way in which the current study advances, extends, or adds value to the theory.
Given that most, if not all, publication outlets have either page or word limitations,
scholars are encouraged to consider writing about 500 words for a single theory, and
up to 1,000 words for multiple theories, with a sub-section dedicated for each theory.
Table 6. The three-pronged approach for literature reviews as part of conceptual and empirical
studies.
Section Goal Steps
Theoretical background To identify and explain an appropriate (1) Explain what the theory is about
theory (or set of theories) that can guide (definition and core tenets) and why the
the study. theory is important.
(2) Explain how the theory has been used in
existing studies (and irregularities, if any).
(3) Explain how the theory guides the current
study.
(4) Explain how the current study advances,
extends, or adds value to the theory.
Conceptual background To identify and explain each key concept (1) Introduce, define (including core tenets),
in the study. and explain the importance of key
concepts.
(2) Explain what existing studies have found
about those key concepts.
(3) Explain the research gap, issue, or
problem of existing studies in relation to
those key concepts.
(4) Explain how the current study advances,
extends, or adds value to the extant
literature on those key concepts.
Proposition development To identify and explain the rationales or (1) Explain what existing studies have found
/ hypothesis reasons behind the proposition or about each proposed relationship (if any).
development hypothesis put forth in the study. (2) Explain the rationales or reasons behind
each proposed relationship.
The second section is conceptual background, whose goal is to identify and explain each
key concept in the study. This section is relevant for both deductive and inductive reason-
ing in conceptual, qualitative, and quantitative studies. In this section, scholars can
(1) introduce, define (including core tenets), and explain the importance of the key
concept,
(2) explain what existing studies have found about the key concept,
(3) explain the research gap, issue, or problem of existing studies in relation to the key
concept, and
(4) explain how the current study advances, extends, or adds value to the extant litera-
ture on the key concept.
When attempting to explain each key concept, scholars are encouraged to develop a
dedicated sub-section for each key concept, as doing so will provide greater clarity on the
structure of the literature review to readers. Given that multiple sub-sections are devel-
oped, scholars are encouraged to be sharp and succinct in their discussion, aiming for
a total word count of up to 1,500 words.
The third section is proposition development or hypothesis development, whose goal is to
identify and explain the rationales or reasons behind the proposition or hypothesis put forth in
the study. This section is relevant for deductive as opposed to inductive reasoning in con-
ceptual, qualitative, and quantitative studies. Here, the focus of scholars should be to
(1) explain what existing studies have found about each proposed relationship (if any),
and
(2) explain the rationales or reasons behind each proposed relationship.
Given the importance of justifying the logic or premise behind each proposition or
hypothesis, which could be manifold, especially in quantitative studies, scholars may
wish to dedicate a larger portion of word count to this section (e.g. up to 1,500 words).
Noteworthily, the more rationales or reasons that scholars can provide, the stronger
the support for the proposition or hypothesis. Ideally, each proposition or hypothesis
could be accompanied by three to five rationales or reasons that explain why key con-
cepts have a relationship with one another.
Approaches to literature reviews as independent studies

There are two main approaches to perform literature reviews as independent studies: first,
using review protocols, and second, using review procedures. The major review protocols
and procedures available for literature reviews as independent studies are presented in
Table 7.
While review procedures list the phases, stages, or steps in a literature review, which
may be in the form of instructions or questions, review protocols encapsulate both the
listing of review procedures as well as the listing of review decisions and outcomes
that need to be disclosed and reported.2 In this regard, review protocols typically have
greater clarity and scope than review procedures. Moreover, unlike review procedures
that are typically narrated only, review protocols such as PRISMA (Moher et al., 2009)
and SPAR-4-SLR (Paul, Lim, et al., 2021) can be illustrated visually, which enhances the
Table 7. Protocols and procedures for literature reviews as independent studies.

Protocol / procedure (source) Details
Protocol: PRISMA (Moher et al., 2009)
Protocol: SPAR-4-SLR (Paul, Lim, et al.,

2021)
Procedure: The literature review Phase 1: Design the review

process (Snyder, 2019) . Is this review needed and what is the contribution of conducting this review?
. What is the potential audience of this review?
. What is the specific purpose and research question(s) this review will be addressing?
. What is an appropriate method to use for this review’s specific purpose?
. What is the search strategy for this specific review (including search terms, databases, inclusion and
exclusion criteria, etc.)?
Phase 2: Conduct the review

. Does the search plan developed in phase one work to produce an appropriate sample or does it need
adjustment?
. What is the practical plan for selecting articles?
. How will the search process and selection be documented?
. How will the quality of the search process and selection be assessed?
Phase 3: Analysis in the review
. What type of information needs to be abstracted to fulfill the purpose of the specific review?
. What type of information is needed to conduct the specific analysis?
. How will reviewers be trained to ensure the quality of this process?
. How will this process be documented and reported?
Phase 4: Structuring and writing the review
. Are the motivation and the need for this review clearly communicated?
. What standards of reporting are appropriate for this specific review?
. What information needs to be included in the review?
. Is the level of information provided enough and appropriate to allow for transparency so readers can
judge the quality of the review?
. The results clearly presented and explained?
. Is the contribution of the review clearly communicated?
Procedure: The bibliometric analysis Step 1: Define the aims and scope of the bibliometric study
procedure (Donthu, Kumar, . Define the aims and the scope of the study.
Mukherjee, et al., 2021) . Definition should be broad enough to warrant the use of bibliometric analysis.
Step 2: Choose the techniques for bibliometric analysis
. Choose the appropriate bibliometric analysis techniques according to study aims.
Step 3: Collect the data for bibliometric analysis
. Design the search term based on scope defined in Step 1.
. Select the database based on the adequacy of its coverage.
. Fetch the bibliometric data based on the choice of bibliometric analysis technique in Step 2.
. Clean the data before proceeding. Eliminate errors such as duplicates and erroneous entries.
Step 4: Run the bibliometric analysis and report the findings
. Performance analysis: Summarize the performance of prolific research constituents (e.g. authors,
institutions, countries, and journals) using publication (e.g. TP, NCA, SA, CA, NAY, PAY), citation (e.g. TC,
AC), and publication-citation measures (e.g. CI, CC, NCP, PCP, CCP, h, g, i). Note: TP = total publications.
NCA = number of contributing authors. SA = sole-authored publications. CA = co-authored publications.
NAY = number of active years of publication. PAY = productivity per active year of publication. TC = total
citations. AC = average citations. CI = collaboration index. CC = collaboration coefficient. NCP = number
of cited publications. PCP = proportion of cited publications. CCP = citations per cited publication. h = h-
index. g = g-index. i = i-index.
. Science mapping: Summarize the bibliometric structure and the intellectual structure using techniques
for science mapping (e.g. citation analysis, co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, co-occurrence
(co-word) analysis, co-authorship analysis) and bibliometric analysis enhancement techniques (e.g.
network metrics, clustering, visualization).
. Curate a bibliometric summary and write the discussion of the findings along with its implications.
Procedure: The five-stage framework Stage 1: Problem formulation

and common practices in meta- . Read key empirical and conceptual articles on the topic.
analysis (Kirca & Yaprak, 2010) . Identify important and common variables, studies, and measurement characteristics.
. Identify contradictory findings.
. Decide on the specific objective of the meta-analysis.
. Develop a preliminary theoretical framework.
Stage 2: Data collection
. Conduct keyword searches of electronic databases.
. Search for references of uncovered key studies.
. Conduct manual searches of relevant publications.
. Solicit studies from known authors.
. Post requests for articles and working papers on academic list-servers.
. Screen and eliminate studies according to elimination criteria.
Stage 3: Data evaluation
. Identify the key common metric across studies (e.g. correlation coefficient).
. Identify important study characteristics.
. Prepare a coding form for each study according to a coding manual.
. Code each study.
. Prepare the database and check for potential errors.
Stage 4: Data analysis
. Conduct univariate analysis of mean effect sizes.
. Search for moderators using bivariate analysis of effect sizes.
. Search for moderators using multivariate analysis of effect sizes.
. Construct and analyze the meta-analytical correlation matrix for theory testing.
Stage 5: Interpretation and discussion
. Report univariate and bivariate findings using tables and figures.
. Provide a detailed research directions section based on findings.
clarity of review decisions. Noteworthily, the SPAR-4-SLR protocol also provides useful
suggestions that can help scholars to justify the logic (rationale, reason) behind review
decisions (Paul, Lim, et al., 2021), thereby strengthening the rigor of the methodology
underpinning the literature review.
Nevertheless, some review procedures may have been developed and contextualized
for specific review types, for example, the bibliometric analysis procedure by Donthu,
Kumar, Mukherjee, et al. (2021) and the five-stage framework and common practices in
meta-analysis by Kirca and Yaprak (2010). Such review procedures are usually useful
because they provide analysis-specific considerations that may have been broadly
specified only in review protocols.
Therefore, scholars who wish to leverage the benefits of both review protocols and
procedures can start by adopting a review protocol before moving on to incorporate
the considerations stipulated by a relevant review procedure into the relevant section
of the review protocol. For example, the type of analysis could be disclosed and explained
in greater detail in the evaluation sub-stage of the SPAR-4-SLR protocol (e.g. using
Donthu, Kumar, Mukherjee, et al.’s (2021) procedure for bibliometric analysis and Kirca
and Yaprak’s (2010) framework for meta-analysis). Alternatively, scholars may wish to
use a review procedure (e.g. the literature review process by Snyder [2019]) as a cross-
check mechanism against the review protocol (e.g. the SPAR-4-SLR protocol by Paul,
Lim, et al. [2021]) to ensure that all possible considerations for the literature review
have been adequately covered and reported.
Types of literature reviews

As mentioned, there are two instances of literature reviews: first, literature reviews as part
of conceptual and empirical studies, and second, literature reviews as independent
studies. Given that literature reviews as part of conceptual and empirical studies have
been thoroughly elaborated as part of the newly developed three-pronged approach
in the previous section, this section will concentrate on the types of literature reviews
as independent studies in line with Paul, Lim, et al. (2021) (Table 8).
Palmatier et al. (2018) proposed a list of three broad types of literature reviews as inde-
pendent studies (i.e. domain, method, and theory reviews), and Paul and Criado (2020)
expanded on this list by adding one more broad type of review (i.e. meta analytical
review) and five specific types of domain reviews (i.e. structured review, framework-based
review, bibliometric review, hybrid review, and review aiming for theory development).
Subsequently, Paul, Lim, et al. (2021) added one more broad type of review to that list
(i.e. meta-systematic reviews) and refined the nomenclature of two specific types of
domain reviews (i.e. from “structured review” to “structured theme-based review” and
“review aiming for theory development” to “conceptual review”) for better clarity.
However, they provided only a general description for each type. Therefore, the next sec-
tions endeavor to provide useful pointers to assist and support scholars in gaining a better
understanding prior to pursuing a chosen type of literature review for independent study.
Domain reviews
Domain reviews concentrate on a retrospection of a specific domain, whereby a ‘domain’
may be an ‘area’ (e.g. customer engagement), an ‘outlet’ (e.g. The Service Industries
Table 8. Types of literature reviews as independent studies.
Contribution
Type Focus Sub-type Overview Progress Ways forward
Domain Specific domain Thematic . Major themes and sub-themes. . Gaps in emerging, declining, or . Ideas to enrich existing themes and sub-
reviews (e.g. area, reviews stagnant themes and sub-themes. themes.
outlet, or topic) . Ideas to establish new themes and sub-
themes.
Framework . Categories and specifics of aspects in the . Gaps in the breadth and depth of . Ideas to strengthen the breadth and
reviews organizing framework (e.g. the ADO aspects in the organizing framework depth of aspects in the organizing
framework – antecedents, decisions, and (e.g. the ADO framework (Paul & framework (e.g. the ADO framework –
outcomes; the TCM framework – theories, Benito, 2018) – antecedents, decisions, antecedents, decisions, and outcomes;
contexts, and methods). and outcomes; the TCM framework the TCM framework – theories, contexts,
(Paul et al., 2017) – theories, contexts, and methods).
and methods).
Bibliometric . Performance evaluation of productivity . Gaps in productivity and impact (e.g. . Ideas to strengthen productivity and
reviews and impact. geographies and sources). impact (e.g. geographies and sources).
. Science mapping of major themes, sub- . Gaps in emerging, declining, or . Ideas to enrich existing themes, sub-
themes, and topics. stagnant themes, sub-themes, and themes, and topics.
topics. . Ideas to establish new themes, sub-
themes, and topics.
Conceptual . Existing concepts, frameworks, models, . Gaps in existing concepts, frameworks, . Ideas for new concepts, frameworks,
reviews taxonomies, and theories. models, taxonomies, and theories. models, taxonomies, and theories, which
may include propositions or hypotheses.
Hybrid . Combination of two or more review sub- . Gaps as per two or more review sub- . Ideas as per two or more review sub-

reviews types. types. types.
Method Specific method . State of a method as per convention of . Gaps of a method as per convention of . Ideas to advance a method as per
reviews chosen review sub-type. chosen review sub-type. convention of chosen review sub-type.
Theory Specific theory . State of a theory as per convention of . Gaps of a theory as per convention of . Ideas to advance a theory as per
reviews chosen review sub-type. chosen review sub-type. convention of chosen review sub-type.
Meta- Specific . Key concepts and relationships in a . Gaps in key concepts and relationships . Implications of meta-analysis in
analytical relationships domain or theory using specific method in a domain or theory using specific reconciling key concepts and
reviews (s). method(s). relationships in a domain or theory using
specific method(s).
. Ideas to advance understanding of key
concepts and relationships in a domain
or theory using specific method(s).
Meta- Specific domain, . Systematic reviews in a domain, method, . Gaps in a domain, method, or theory . Ideas to enrich a domain, method, or
systematic method, or or theory as per convention of chosen as per convention of chosen review theory as per convention of chosen
reviews theory review sub-type. sub-type. review sub-type.
497
Note: All reviews should endeavor to deliver three major insights: (1) an overview, (2) the progress, and (3) ways forward.
Journal), or a ‘topic’ (e.g. customer engagement on social media). There are many ways a
domain can be reviewed: thematic, framework, bibliometric, conceptual, and hybrid.
Thematic reviews endeavor to find out the major themes in a domain. They often rely
on a qualitative methodology involving thematic analysis. More often than not, scholars
perform the analysis manually. One suggestion that scholars may consider is to use Com-
puter Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis (CAQDA) software such as ATLAS.ti, Leximancer,
Nvivo, and Quirkos. This can help scholars to keep their review organized and enable
them to go beyond the reporting of major themes and into the sub-themes for each
major theme, thereby making the insights that can be derived from thematic reviews
as rich as, if not richer than, empirical qualitative research. More importantly, the pro-
cedures for qualitative analysis and the equivalent rigor in thematic reviews need to be
thoroughly considered and disclosed. In this regard, scholars employing thematic analysis
could rely on the steps recommended by Braun and Clarke (2006) (i.e. familiarizing with
qualitative data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes,
defining and naming themes, and reporting thematic findings and implications), and
ensure its rigor by establishing trustworthiness according to the recommendations of
Guba (1981) (i.e. credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability) (see Lim,
2019a, 2019b). The value of thematic reviews resides in the narrative richness that it typi-
cally provides for each major theme and sub-theme (see Lim, 2016).
Framework reviews endeavor to provide an organized mapping of the content in a
domain. To do so, scholars can adopt organizing frameworks and utilize a content analy-
sis. For example, scholars can adopt the ADO framework (Paul & Benito, 2018) to map
antecedents, decisions, and outcomes, or the TCM framework (Paul et al., 2017) to
provide a list of theories (e.g. theory name, disciplinary origin), contexts (e.g. country,
industry), and methods (e.g. research design, data analysis method, data source) that
have been used in the domain. When using the ADO framework, it is important to
create categories and organize constructs according to categories (e.g. categories such
as guest-, platform-, host-, location-, property-, social-, and value-related antecedents
for home sharing; see Lim et al., 2021). While using either one of these frameworks
were adequate in the past, the bar or standard of framework reviews has risen in
recent times, necessitating such reviews to consider an integration of frameworks (e.g.
the ADO-TCM framework; see Lim et al., 2021).
Bibliometric reviews endeavor to objectively evaluate the performance and map the
science in a domain. Unlike other types of reviews, which are subjective and prone to
bias or error due to their tendency to rely on manual coding and tools, bibliometric
and meta-analytical reviews are objective and less prone to bias or error because they
rely on automated or semi-automated quantitative data and tools. Bibliometric analysis
is also recognized as a manifestation of big data analytics through machine learning of
scholarly research (Kumar, Sharma, et al., 2022), and thus, a representation of a technol-
ogy-empowered review (Kumar, Sahoo, et al., 2022). There are two broad types of analysis
in bibliometric reviews: performance analysis and science mapping (Donthu, Kumar,
Mukherjee, et al., 2021).
The performance analysis in a bibliometric review is akin to the reporting of the profile
of participants in an empirical study. Scholars can evaluate publication and citation per-
formance based on year, publication (article), outlet or source (journal), author (academic,
non-academic), institution (academic, non-academic), and geography (region, country) as
part of performance analysis. Given that the information derived from performance analy-
sis is mainly descriptive, scholars are encouraged to explain the implication of the descrip-
tive findings. For example, a high concentration of research from developed and Western
countries may signal the need to call for more research from developing and Eastern
countries, which can be substantiated from a triangulation of statistical observations
from the analysis of authors, institutions, and countries. Given the rise of China and
India, a finer-grained call could be made to specific regions in the East and the West
that may be underrepresented, for example, Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia.
Similarly, the information pertaining to publications and sources could help scholars
who are new to the domain to get acquainted to the domain’s key readings before
they subsequently develop and submit their research to the domain’s main outlet(s)
based on the statistical data reported in the performance analysis.
The science mapping in a bibliometric review is akin to the thematic analysis in empiri-
cal qualitative research and thematic reviews, albeit with greater generalizability because
it leverages on quantitative data and tools (Donthu, Kumar, Mukherjee, et al., 2021).
As a start, scholars can consider a co-authorship analysis among authors, institutions, and
countries, which could reveal the key research groups in the domain and the themes con-
tributed by those research groups. Scholars can also develop a citation analysis of sources,
which could reveal the key groups of sources and their contributions in the domain. These
science mapping analyses can therefore help to enrich the descriptive insights provided by
the performance analysis on the research constituents of the domain (see Lim, Rasul, et al.,
2022). Being aware of key research constituents in a domain is important and such insights
can help scholars recognize, follow, and keep themselves up to date on the latest research
by key research groups and sources in the domain.
Subsequently, scholars can engage in a range of science mapping analyses in relation
to the body of knowledge in the domain. In the past, scholars often engage in a single
science mapping analysis to reveal the major themes in the domain (e.g. bibliographic
coupling, co-citation analysis, co-occurrence (co-word) analysis). However, similar to fra-
mework reviews, the bar or standard of bibliometric reviews has also risen in recent
times, wherein multiple science mapping analyses are strategically employed. For
example, Goodell et al. (2021) conducted bibliographic coupling based on citing publi-
cations and co-occurrence (co-word) analysis based on author keywords to reveal the
current state of the body of knowledge, thereby enabling the themes derived from
both analyses to be triangulated. Similarly, Lim, Rasul, et al. (2022) conducted co-citation
analysis based on cited publications to uncover the knowledge foundation (or ‘the past’),
co-occurrence (co-word) analysis to unpack the knowledge production (or ‘the present’),
and a CAQDA thematic analysis to reveal the knowledge potential (or ‘the future’) of
the domain. Further reading of Donthu, Kumar, Mukherjee, et al. (2021) is recommended
for scholars interested in bibliometric reviews.
Conceptual reviews endeavor to develop new concepts, frameworks, models, taxo-
nomies, and theories, which could include propositions or hypotheses, in a domain.
Such reviews typically concentrate on a niche space in the domain, where they
attempt to reconcile and transform fragmented into integrated knowledge that can be
tested and used by future research. Unlike other types of literature reviews, conceptual
reviews are uncommon despite their promise to deliver strong theoretical contributions
(Lim, 2017; Paul & Mas, 2020; Post et al., 2020), and their development could be
substantially strengthened when they are supported by rigorous review protocols and
procedures.
Hybrid reviews endeavor to achieve the goals and outcomes of two or more reviews for
a domain. As noted through the rising bar or standard of bibliometric and framework
reviews, hybrid reviews are well positioned to meet the rising expectations of literature
reviews as independent studies. For example, Chopra et al. (2021) conducted a biblio-
metric and conceptual review, whereas Sharma et al. (2020) performed a bibliometric
and framework review.
Method and theory reviews

While past scholars have considered and classified method and theory reviews as
‘different’ from domain reviews, this article contends that the ways in which method
and theory reviews can be conducted are arguably similar to those of domain reviews.
Specifically, the only ‘difference’ between domain, method, and theory reviews is the
‘subject’ of the review. That is to say, instead of concentrating on an ‘area’, an ‘outlet’,
or a ‘topic’ as in the case of domain reviews, method and theory reviews focus on a
‘method’ and a ‘theory’, respectively. Noteworthily, a ‘method’ or a ‘theory’ can be
studied using thematic, framework, bibliometric, conceptual, and hybrid reviews. For
example, Ghasemy et al. (2020) carried out a CAQDA content analysis in a thematic
review on partial least square-structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), whereas Tanrikulu
(2021) carried out a hybrid framework and conceptual review on the theory of consump-
tion values (TCV).
Meta-analytical reviews
Like bibliometric reviews, meta-analytical reviews are objective rather than subjective
because they rely on quantitative data and tools. However, unlike bibliometric reviews,
meta-analytical reviews are not interested to evaluate the performance and map the
science of a domain. Instead, meta-analytical reviews are interested in the statistical
assessment of results from independent studies in the literature on a common set of
relationships in order to generate a quantitative estimate of the studied phenomenon.
According to Grewal et al. (2018), there are three types of meta-analysis for meta-analyti-
cal reviews: traditional meta-analysis, replication analysis, and second-order meta-analy-
sis. Traditional meta-analysis involves the analysis of effect sizes using standard meta-
analytic procedures, whereas replication analysis involves the analysis of key statistics
from past studies to explore the role of certain factors in a common set of relationships,
and second-order meta-analysis is essentially a meta-analysis of past meta-analyses to
explore the role of certain factors in a common set of relationships. Noteworthily, the
combination of review protocols and suitable review procedures such as the five-stage
framework and common practices in meta-analysis by Kirca and Yaprak (2010) is rec-
ommended in order for meta-analytical reviews to be replicable (i.e. the role of the
review protocol) and rigorously developed (i.e. the role of the review procedure).
Meta-systematic review
Similar to second-order meta-analysis in meta-analytical reviews, a meta-systematic
review is essentially a ‘systematic review of systematic reviews’. However, unlike meta-
analytical reviews using second-order meta-analysis, which remain interested in the
statistical assessment of results from previous meta-analyses on a common set of relation-

ships, a meta-systematic review is interested to consolidate and provide a synthesized
understanding of the science for a domain, a method, or a theory. Moreover, unlike
domain, method, and theory reviews, meta-systematic reviews are uncommon because
not many domains, methods, and theories have received enough review attention to
warrant meta-systematic reviews. Nevertheless, meta-systematic reviews are highly prom-
ising, as witnessed in Lim and Weissmann’s (2022) theory of behavioral control, which was
born out of a meta-systematic review of existing reviews on behavioral control.
The future of literature reviews

Though the bulk of the responsibility for the progress of scientific knowledge will argu-
ably remain with conceptual and empirical studies, the contribution and supporting
value of literature reviews should be acknowledged and never underestimated. With
the rich insights from literature reviews that are well done, the path toward scientific pro-
gress should be clearer and more agile because scholars pursuing conceptual and empiri-
cal studies will be empowered with a comprehensive understanding of what is known
and unknown, mitigating the potential of expertise bias or illusory superiority. To stimu-
late greater interest and pursuit of literature reviews, particularly in service settings, this
article presents some potentially fruitful areas of service research for prospective scholars
to consider, along with some innovative ways in which literature reviews can be curated
in the future in order to keep up with the rising bar or standard for literature reviews as
independent studies.
Areas in service research for literature reviews

A pragmatic analysis of bibliometric reviews that are available for mainstream service
journals (i.e. Journal of Service Research, Journal of Service Theory and Practice, Journal of
Services Marketing, and The Service Industries Journal) reveals several promising broad
areas that could be potentially reviewed (Table 9), such as
. customer behavior in service settings,

. customer engagement in service settings
. customer experience and value co-creation in service settings,
. customer satisfaction with service encounters,
. customer relationship management and relationship marketing in service settings,
. digital transformation in service delivery,
. leveraging and managing emotions in service delivery,
. leveraging and managing employees in service delivery,
. leveraging and managing service quality and excellence,
. service branding,
. service design and innovation, and
. service failure and recovery, among others.
In addition to the broad areas mentioned above that were revealed through the retro-
spective reviews of mainstream service journals, prospective service scholars could also
Table 9. Most prominent themes of service research in mainstream service journals as per bibliometric
reviews.
Journal Journal of Service Journal of Service Theory and Journal of Services The Services Industries
Research Practice Marketing Journal
Source Donthu, Gremler, Donthu, Kumar, Ranaweera, Donthu, Kumar, Viglia et al. (2022)
Kumar, et al. (2020) Sigala, et al. (2021) Ranaweera,
Pattnaik, et al.
(2021)
Prominent . Customer . Service quality and . Brand and . Service
themes satisfaction customer satisfaction customer management
. Customer loyalty . Customer value, customer engagement . Service innovation
. Service recovery perception, value co- behavior . Service adoption
. Service quality creation, and service . Service co- and service
. Service failure excellence creation experience
. Frontline . Customer satisfaction and . Service . Service quality and
employees performance management encounters and customer
. Relationship . Technology, digitization, service recovery satisfaction
marketing and operations . Social . Management of
. Service marketing . Customer behavior and networking service quality
. Service experience . Consumer behavior
innovation . Service firms
. Co-creation . Service and
. Service-dominant relationship
logic marketing
. Word of mouth
. Customer
experience
. Emotion
. Service design
. Customer
relationship
management
. Service encounter
Note: A bibliometric review of Journal of Service Management is not available at the time of writing.
explore the feasibility of pursuing highly-focused reviews in specific service research areas
such as
. customer relationship building and management in omnichannel service settings (e.g.

multiple offline-only, online-only, or blended service settings),
. digital transformation in general versus specific service industries (e.g. models, enablers,
barriers, opportunities, threats) and the provision of transformative digital services
(e.g. every client gets a tech solution, people and technology working together),
. emergent technologies for enabling service innovation and enhancing service quality
(e.g. artificial intelligence, big data analytics, blockchain, fintech, internet of things,
metaverse), and
. modeling and managing the future of work across general versus specific service
industries (e.g. gig, hybrid, and remote work), among others.
While the list of promising areas in service research that could be reviewed is not
exhaustive, it is important that prospective scholars interested to pursue literature
reviews as independent studies perform a quick check on search engines to ensure
that the area of interest has not been recently reviewed (e.g. not within the last five to
10 years) – otherwise, duplicative efforts may be at risk. Nevertheless, finer-grained scru-
tiny of recent reviews may reveal shortcomings that warrant the pursuit of new reviews.
Therefore, it always important that prospective scholars take a step back to reflect on the
value that a new review could provide (i.e. necessity, importance, relevance, urgency, and
contribution) prior to undertaking the review.
There are several possible scenarios that could warrant a new review.
First, no review on the subject (i.e. domain, theory, method) has been conducted. This
is the best or most ideal scenario. However, there should be sufficient literature for review
– it would not be sensible to review a subject with only a handful of publications. As a rule
of thumb, a subject should have a minimum of 40 publications in order to produce
sufficiently rich insights from the review.
Second, a bibliometric review of the subject has been conducted. If this is the case, then
scholars could consider pursuing a framework review for a major theme identified in that
bibliometric review, provided that there is sufficient literature relating to that major
theme for a new review. In most instances, bibliometric review provides only a broad
encapsulation of the subject, leaving the opportunity for finer-grained scrutiny through
reviews such as framework reviews. Nevertheless, a new bibliometric review may be war-
ranted, for example, if a prior bibliometric review has only considered and reported on a
performance analysis (e.g. Brown et al., 2020) but not a science mapping of the subject
(e.g. Donthu, Kumar, Lim, et al., 2022).
Third, a thematic or framework review of the subject has been conducted (e.g. custo-
mer engagement on social media in the hospitality industry). If this is the case, then scho-
lars could consider developing a framework review for a closely-related subject (e.g.
customer engagement on social media in the retail industry), or a bibliometric review
of a large scope of that subject (e.g. customer engagement on social media in service
industries), provided that the expanded scope of the subject is adequately large to the
extent that it is inefficient and not pragmatic to conduct a manual review (e.g. high hun-
dreds to thousands of publications).
Fourth, bibliometric, framework, and thematic reviews of the subject have been con-
ducted. If this is the case, then scholars could consider developing meta-analytical
reviews that investigate specific relationships of interest or a meta-systematic review of
existing reviews on the subject.
Fifth, if meta-analytical reviews on the subject are a common sight, then bibliometric,
conceptual, framework, and thematic reviews could be considered. However, if meta-sys-
tematic reviews are available, then it is likely that all review options on the subject have
been exhausted. In this case, prospective scholars are encouraged to consider other sub-
jects where literature reviews are valuable but remain scarce.
Detailed scrutiny of independent literature reviews published in mainstream service
journals reveals several interesting insights (Table 10). First, thematic reviews are most
prominent (n = 18), followed by conceptual reviews (n = 13) and bibliometric reviews (n
= 9). While bibliometric reviews typically rely on bibliometric software such as Gephi
and VOSviewer (Donthu, Gremler, Kumar, et al., 2020; Donthu, Kumar, Ranaweera,
Sigala, et al., 2021; Donthu, Kumar, Ranaweera, Pattnaik, et al., 2021; Viglia et al., 2022),
other reviews, particularly thematic reviews, are often performed manually, though
some service scholars have also leveraged on CAQDA software such as Leximancer
(Arici & Uysal, 2021; Riedel et al., 2021), which is highly encouraged as they improve
the objectivity of qualitative thematic analysis. Second, multiple reviews on the same
domain are possible using different review types to reveal different insights (e.g. customer
504
Table 10. Independent literature reviews in mainstream service journals.
Bibliometric review (n = 9) Conceptual review (n = 13)
Journal of Service 2 2
W. M. LIM ET AL.
Management Influential conceptual articles in service Customers’ contamination concerns
research (Li et al., 2021). (Hazée & Van Vaerenbergh, 2020).
New service development (Mendes et al., Public service management (Hodgkinson
2017). et al., 2017).
Research Frontline service employee (Subramony Service climate (Bowen & Schneider,
et al., 2021). 2014).
Journal of Service Research (Donthu,
Gremler, Kumar, et al., 2020).
Theory and Practice Journal of Service Theory and Practice Customer-to-customer interaction
(Donthu, Kumar, Ranaweera, Sigala, et al., (Heinonen et al., 2018).
2021) Value co-creation (Wang et al., 2019).
Journal of Services 2 2
Marketing Journal of Services Marketing (Donthu, Industry 4.0 (Bonamigo & Frech, 2021).
Kumar, Ranaweera, Pattnaik, et al., 2021; Legitimate and illegitimate consumer
Valtakoski, 2019). complaining behavior (Arora &
Chakraborty, 2020).
The Service Industries 2 6
Journal Financial marketing research (Muñoz-Leiva Customer citizenship behavior (Gong & Yi,
et al., 2013). 2021).
The Services Industries Journal (Viglia et al., Customer experience (Bueno et al., 2019).
2022). Destination innovation process (Ozseker,
2019).
Luxury patient experience (Klaus, 2018).
Multichannel integration along the
customer journey (Gao et al., 2020).
New service development (Kitsios &
Kamariotou, 2020).
Hybrid review (bibliometric, conceptual) (n Hybrid review (bibliometric, Hybrid review (conceptual, thematic) Hybrid review (framework,
= 1) thematic) (n = 1) (n = 5) thematic)
(n = 1)
Journal of Service 2
Management Employee involvement in service
innovation (Engen et al., 2021).
Human-like communication in
conversational agents (Van Pinxteren
et al., 2020).
Journal of Service
Research
Theory and Practice Customer experience (Silva et al., 2021). Innovation (Russo-Spena et al., 2017).
Well-being (Rahman, 2020).
Journal of Services 1
Marketing Service ecosystems (Mustak & Plé,
2020).
The Service Industries 1 1
Journal Challenges associated with the Belt and Service innovation
Road Initiative (Himaz, 2021). implementation (Singh et al.,
2020).
Meta-analytical review (n = 1) Method review (conceptual) (n = 1) Method review (conceptual, thematic) Method review (thematic)
(n = 3) (n = 2)
Management Case study (Verleye, 2019).
Neuroscience (Verhulst et al., 2019).
Research Critical incident technique (Gremler,
2004).
Journal of Service
Theory and Practice
Journal of Services 1 1 2
Marketing Service interaction quality (Ranjan et al., Design fiction diegetic prototyping Action research (Elg et al.,

2015). (Harwood et al., 2019). 2020).
Netnography (Heinonen &
Medberg, 2018).
The Service Industries
Journal
Thematic review (n = 18) Theory review (bibliometric) (n = 1) Theory review (conceptual) (n = 2) Theory review (thematic)
(n = 1)
Management Carsharing (Nansubuga & Kowalkowski,
2021)
Health care customer (McColl-Kennedy et al.,
2017).
Third party to significant other for service
encounters (Abboud et al., 2021).
505
506
Research Service guarantee (Hogreve & Gremler,
2009).
W. M. LIM ET AL.
Theory and Practice Customer experience (Jain et al., 2017).
Customer journeys (Følstad & Kvale, 2018).
Gamification in tourism and hospitality
(Pasca et al., 2021).
Value co-creation in the industrial services
environment (Bonamigo et al., 2020).
Journal of Services 6 2
Marketing Consumers experiencing vulnerability Institutional theory (Koskela-Huotari
(Riedel et al., 2021). et al., 2020).
Customer service experiences (Mahr et al., Service theories and artificial
2019). intelligence (Bock et al., 2020).
Information processing by elderly consumers
(Guido et al., 2020).
Service environment (Baker et al., 2020).
Service research (Furrer et al., 2020).
Value creation and destruction in social
marketing services (Zainuddin & Gordon,
2020).
The Service Industries 4 1 1
Journal Customer engagement and employee Service dominant logic (da Silva et al., Trust theory (Isaeva et al.,
engagement (Chandni & Rahman, 2020). 2017). 2020).
Leadership, green innovation, and green
creativity (Arici & Uysal, 2021).
Managing service employees (Wirtz & Jerger,
2016).
Servicescape cues (Mari & Poggesi, 2013).
experience – e.g. conceptual review by Bueno et al. (2019) and hybrid bibliometric–con-
ceptual review by Silva et al. [2021]), or the same review type but with a different focus to
reveal different insights (e.g. bibliometric review – e.g. the evolution and impact of quali-
tative research in Journal of Services Marketing by Valtakoski (2019) and the mapping of
themes in Journal of Services Marketing by Donthu, Kumar, Ranaweera, Pattnaik, et al.
[2021]). Third, hybrid reviews, though small in number, are on the rise, with different com-
binations of review types (e.g. bibliometric–conceptual, bibliometric–thematic, concep-
tual–thematic, and framework–thematic), whereas purely framework (n = 0), meta-
analytical (n = 1), and meta-systematic (n = 0) reviews are useful but remain underutilized
in service research, and thus, may be considered by future scholars interested to publish
independent literature reviews in mainstream service journals.
Innovation in literature reviews

As indicated in the discussion of bibliometric and framework reviews, the bar or standard
of literature reviews as independent studies are on the rise. Hence, it is important that pro-
spective scholars who are interested to pursue literature reviews actively find innovative
ways to push the quality of their literature reviews to the highest standard possible. To
this end, this article presents some promising ideas to inspire prospective scholars to
pursue innovative literature reviews in the future.
. Combine different analytical techniques (e.g. bibliographic coupling + co-occurrence

(co-word) analysis – see Goodell et al. [2021]) or organizing frameworks (e.g. ADO
and TCM frameworks – see Lim et al. [2021]) in a single literature review.
. Combine different types of reviews in a single literature review (e.g. bibliometric + con-
ceptual or framework reviews – see Chopra et al. [2021] and Sharma et al. [2020]).
. Conduct a multi-study review of different fields whose synthesis is absent or scarce but
holds immense promise and value (e.g. environmental social governance and total
quality management – see Lim, Ciasullo, et al. [2022]).
. Conduct a multi-study review involving literature (theory) and non-literature (practice).
. Conduct an impact analysis in the literature review (e.g. negative binomial regression
on universalist, social constructivist, and presentation factors that contribute to citation
impact – see Donthu, Kumar, Pandey, et al. [2021], Kumar et al. [2021], and Varma et al.
[2022]).
. Consider leveraging on CAQDA such as ATLAS.ti, Leximancer, Nvivo, and Quirkos.
Conclusion
In summary, this article clarifies that literature reviews are part and parcel of scholarly
research, playing a foundational and prominent role in advancing subject areas in the
body of knowledge.
As part of conceptual and empirical studies, literature reviews support the develop-
ment of new knowledge as they shed light into (1) key concepts as well as (2) bases
for propositions or hypotheses put forth in the study. As independent studies, literature
reviews facilitate (1) the curation of new studies as they present the current state of the
performance, knowledge, and major streams of research in the field, (2) the discovery of
noteworthy gaps such as conflicting or inconclusive findings, emerging areas, and
underexplored areas to chart the future progress of the field, and (3) the proposals for
opportunities and solutions as ways forward to advance theoretical understanding, con-
textual insights, and methodological practice in the field.
The authors hope that the overview and guidelines for writing a literature review
herein will be useful to promote high-quality, innovative literature reviews – be it as
part of conceptual and empirical studies or as independent studies – especially in
service research. Noteworthily, this article can be used not only as a guide to develop lit-
erature reviews, but also as a reference in responding to editor and reviewer comments
(Lim, 2021) as part of a collective effort to gently and respectfully educate the scientific
community on the role and value of literature reviews. At the end of the day, it is impor-
tant for scholarly research to proliferate in ways that truly highlight what really matters
(Aljarah et al., 2022; Gip et al., 2022). Thus, literature reviews should be acknowledged
and treated as a key contributor to advancing the body of knowledge in the field.
Notes
1. Empirical studies may be qualitative (non-numerical) or quantitative (numerical). Deductive
reasoning is a top-down process of reasoning that moves from general to specific statements
to reach a logical conclusion, and thus, it is geared toward theory testing. Inductive reasoning
is a bottom-up process of reasoning that moves from specific observations to broader gen-
eralizations to reach a general principle, and thus, it is often used for theory development.
2. For a complete understanding of each review protocol and procedure, scholars are rec-
ommended to refer to the original sources listed in Table 3.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to convey their sincere appreciation to the editor and three anonymous reviewers
for their constructive feedback to improve the quality of the article, and Jacob King Soon Ting for
professionally translating the title, abstract, and keywords of the article into mandarin.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
Weng Marc Lim http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7196-1923
Satish Kumar http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5200-1476
Faizan Ali http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4528-3764
References
Abboud, L., As’ad, N., Bilstein, N., Costers, A., Henkens, B., & Verleye, K. (2021). From third party to
significant other for service encounters: A systematic review on third-party roles and their impli-
cations. Journal of Service Management, 32(4), 533–559. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-04-2020-
0099
Aljarah, A., Dalal, B., Ibrahim, B., & Lahuerta-Otero, E. (2022). The attribution effects of CSR motiv-
ations on brand advocacy: Psychological distance matters!. The Service Industries Journal, 1–23.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2022.2041603
Arici, H. E., & Uysal, M. (2021). Leadership, green innovation, and green creativity: A systematic
review. The Service Industries Journal, 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2021.1964482
Arora, S. D., & Chakraborty, A. (2020). Legitimate and illegitimate consumer complaining behavior: A
review and taxonomy. Journal of Services Marketing, 34(7), 921–937. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-
12-2019-0490
Baker, J., Bentley, K., & Lamb Jr, C. (2020). Service environment research opportunities. Journal of
Services Marketing, 34(3), 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-02-2019-0077
Bock, D. E., Wolter, J. S., & Ferrell, O. C. (2020). Artificial intelligence: Disrupting what we know about
services. Journal of Services Marketing, 34(3), 317–334. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-01-2019-0047
Bonamigo, A., Dettmann, B., Frech, C. G., & Werner, S. M. (2020). Facilitators and inhibitors of value
co-creation in the industrial services environment. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 30(6),
609–642. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-03-2020-0061
Bonamigo, A., & Frech, C. G. (2021). Industry 4.0 in services: Challenges and opportunities for value co-
creation. Journal of Services Marketing, 35(4), 412–427. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-02-2020-0073
Bowen, D. E., & Schneider, B. (2014). A service climate synthesis and future research agenda. Journal
of Service Research, 17(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670513491633
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brown, T., Park, A., & Pitt, L. (2020). A 60-year bibliographic review of the Journal of Advertising
Research: Perspectives on trends in authorship, influences, and research impact. Journal of
Advertising Research, 60(4), 353–360. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-2020-028
Bueno, E. V., Weber, T. B. B., Bomfim, E. L., & Kato, H. T. (2019). Measuring customer experience in
service: A systematic review. The Service Industries Journal, 39(11–12), 779–798. https://doi.org/
10.1080/02642069.2018.1561873
Chandni, S., & Rahman, Z. (2020). Customer engagement and employee engagement: Systematic
review and future directions. The Service Industries Journal, 40(13–14), 932–959. https://doi.org/
10.1080/02642069.2020.1733534
Chopra, M., Saini, N., Kumar, S., Varma, A., Mangla, S. K., & Lim, W. M. (2021). Past, present, and future
of knowledge management for business sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 328, 129592.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129592
da Silva, S. V., Antonio, N., & de Carvalho, J. C. (2017). Analysis of the service dominant logic network,
authors, and articles. The Service Industries Journal, 37(2), 125–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02642069.2017.1297801
Donthu, N., Gremler, D. D., Kumar, S., & Pattnaik, D. (2020). Mapping of Journal of Service Research
themes: A 22-year review. Journal of Service Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670520977672
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Lim, W. M., & Pattnaik, D. (2022). A scientometric study of the Journal of
Advertising Research. Journal of Advertising Research. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-2022-002
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric
analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). Research constituents, intellectual structure,
and collaboration patterns in Journal of International Marketing: An analytical retrospective.
Journal of International Marketing, 29(2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069031X211004234
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Ranaweera, C., Pattnaik, D., & Gustafsson, A. (2021). Mapping of Journal of
Services Marketing themes: A retrospective overview using bibliometric analysis. Journal of
Services Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-04-2020-0122
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Ranaweera, C., Sigala, M., & Sureka, R. (2021). Journal of Service Theory and
Practice at age 30: Past, present and future contributions to service research. Journal of Service
Theory and Practice, 31(3), 265–295. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-10-2020-0233
Elg, M., Gremyr, I., Halldorsson, A., & Wallo, A. (2020). Service action research: Review and guidelines.
Journal of Services Marketing, 34(1), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-11-2018-0350
Engen, M., Fuglsang, L., Tuominen, T., Sundbo, J., Møller, J. K., Scupola, A., & Sørensen, F. (2021).
Conceptualising employee involvement in service innovation: An integrative review. Journal of
Service Management, 32(5), 702–751. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-11-2019-0348
Følstad, A., & Kvale, K. (2018). Customer journeys: A systematic literature review. Journal of Service
Theory and Practice, 28(2), 196–227. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-11-2014-0261
Furrer, O., Kerguignas, J. Y., Delcourt, C., & Gremler, D. D. (2020). Twenty-seven years of service
research: A literature review and research agenda. Journal of Services Marketing, 34(3), 299–
316. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-02-2019-0078
Gao, L., Melero, I., & Sese, F. J. (2020). Multichannel integration along the customer journey: A sys-
tematic review and research agenda. The Service Industries Journal, 40(15–16), 1087–1118. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2019.1652600
Ghasemy, M., Teeroovengadum, V., Becker, J. M., & Ringle, C. M. (2020). This fast car can move faster:
A review of PLS-SEM application in higher education research. Higher Education, 80(6), 1121–
1152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00534-1
Gip, H., The Khoa, D., Guchait, P., Fernando Garcia, R. L., & Pasamehmetoglu, A. (2022). Employee
mindfulness and creativity: When emotions and national culture matter. The Service Industries
Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2022.2037570
Gong, T., & Yi, Y. (2021). A review of customer citizenship behaviors in the service context. The Service
Industries Journal, 41(3–4), 169–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2019.1680641
Goodell, J. W., Kumar, S., Lim, W. M., & Pattnaik, D. (2021). Artificial intelligence and machine learning
in finance: Identifying foundations, themes, and research clusters from bibliometric analysis.
Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 32, 100577.
Gremler, D. D. (2004). The critical incident technique in service research. Journal of Service Research, 7
(1), 65–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670504266138
Grewal, D., Puccinelli, N., & Monroe, K. B. (2018). Meta-analysis: Integrating accumulated knowledge.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(1), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0570-5
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational
Communication and Technology Journal, 29(2), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766777
Guido, G., Pichierri, M., Rizzo, C., Chieffi, V., & Moschis, G. (2020). Information processing by elderly
consumers: A five-decade review. Journal of Services Marketing, 35(1), 14–28. https://doi.org/10.
1108/JSM-09-2019-0368
Harwood, T., Garry, T., & Belk, R. (2019). Design fiction diegetic prototyping: A research framework
for visualizing service innovations. Journal of Services Marketing, 34(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.
1108/JSM-11-2018-0339
Hazée, S., & Van Vaerenbergh, Y. (2020). Customers’ contamination concerns: An integrative frame-
work and future prospects for service management. Journal of Service Management, 32(2), 161–
175. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-04-2020-0129
Heinonen, K., Jaakkola, E., & Neganova, I. (2018). Drivers, types and value outcomes of customer-to-
customer interaction: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Service Theory and
Practice, 28(6), 710–732. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-01-2017-0010
Heinonen, K., & Medberg, G. (2018). Netnography as a tool for understanding customers:
Implications for service research and practice. Journal of Services Marketing, 32(6), 657–679.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-08-2017-0294
Himaz, R. (2021). Challenges associated with the BRI: A review of recent economics literature. The
Service Industries Journal, 41(7–8), 512–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2019.1584193
Hodgkinson, I. R., Hannibal, C., Keating, B. W., Buxton, R. C., & Bateman, N. (2017). Toward a public
service management: Past, present, and future directions. Journal of Service Management, 28(5),
998–1023. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-01-2017-0020
Hogreve, J., & Gremler, D. D. (2009). Twenty years of service guarantee research: A synthesis. Journal
of Service Research, 11(4), 322–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670508329225
Isaeva, N., Gruenewald, K., & Saunders, M. N. (2020). Trust theory and customer services research:
Theoretical review and synthesis. The Service Industries Journal, 40(15-16), 1031–1063. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2020.1779225
Jain, R., Aagja, J., & Bagdare, S. (2017). Customer experience–A review and research agenda. Journal
of Service Theory and Practice, 27(3), 642–662. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-03-2015-0064
Kirca, A. H., & Yaprak, A. (2010). The use of meta-analysis in international business research: Its
current status and suggestions for better practice. International Business Review, 19(3), 306–
314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2010.01.001
Kitsios, F., & Kamariotou, M. (2020). Mapping new service development: A review and synthesis of
literature. The Service Industries Journal, 40(9-10), 682–704. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.
2018.1561876
Klaus, P. (2018). Luxury patient experience (LPX): Review, conceptualization, and future research
directions. The Service Industries Journal, 38(1-2), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2017.
1377190
Koskela-Huotari, K., Vink, J., & Edvardsson, B. (2020). The institutional turn in service research: Taking
stock and moving ahead. Journal of Services Marketing, 34(3), 373–387. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JSM-02-2019-0101
Kumar, S., Maggino, F., Mahto, R. V., Sureka, R., Alaimo, L. S., & Lim, W. M. (2021). Social Indicators
Research: A retrospective using bibliometric analysis. Social Indicators Research. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11205-021-02847-9
Kumar, S., Sahoo, S., Lim, W. M., & Dana, L. P. (2022). Religion as a social shaping force in entrepre-
neurship and business: Insights from a technology-empowered systematic literature review.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 175, 121393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.
2021.121393
Kumar, S., Sharma, D., Rao, S., Lim, W. M., & Mangla, S. K. (2022). Past, present, and future of sustain-
able finance: Insights from big data analytics through machine learning of scholarly research.
Annals of Operations Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-021-04410-8
Li, L. P., Fehrer, J. A., Brodie, R. J., & Juric, B. (2021). Trajectories of influential conceptual articles in
service research. Journal of Service Management, 32(5), 645–672. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-
04-2021-0121
Lim, W. M. (2016). Understanding the selfie phenomenon: Current insights and future research
directions. European Journal of Marketing, 50(9/10), 1773–1788. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-07-
2015-0484
Lim, W. M. (2017). Inside the sustainable consumption theoretical toolbox: Critical concepts for sus-
tainability, consumption, and marketing. Journal of Business Research, 78, 69–80. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.05.001
Lim, W. M. (2019a). How can challenger marketers target the right customer organization? The
ACOW customer organization profiling matrix for challenger marketing. Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing, 34(2), 338–346. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-02-2017-0039
Lim, W. M. (2019b). Spectator sports and its role in the social marketing of national unity: Insights
from a multiracial country. Journal of Leisure Research, 50(3), 260–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00222216.2019.1590139
Lim, W. M. (2021). Pro-active peer review for premier journals. Industrial Marketing Management, 95,
65–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.04.004
Lim, W. M. (2022). Toward a theory of social influence in the new normal. Activities, Adaptation &
Aging, 46(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/01924788.2022.2031165
Lim, W. M., Ciasullo, M. V., Douglas, A., & Kumar, S. (2022). Environmental social governance (ESG)
and total quality management (TQM): A multi-study meta-systematic review. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2022.2048952
Lim, W. M., Rasul, T., Kumar, S., & Ala, M. (2022). Past, present, and future of customer engagement.
Journal of Business Research, 140, 439–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.014
Lim, W. M., & Weissmann, M. A. (2022). Toward a theory of behavioral control. Journal of Strategic
Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2021.1890190
Lim, W. M., Yap, S. F., & Makkar, M. (2021). Home sharing in marketing and tourism at a tipping point:
What do we know, how do we know, and where should we be heading? Journal of Business
Research, 122, 534–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.08.051
Mahr, D., Stead, S., & Odekerken-Schröder, G. (2019). Making sense of customer service experiences:
A text mining review. Journal of Services Marketing, 33(1), 88–103. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-
10-2018-0295
Mari, M., & Poggesi, S. (2013). Servicescape cues and customer behavior: A systematic literature
review and research agenda. The Service Industries Journal, 33(2), 171–199. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02642069.2011.613934
McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Snyder, H., Elg, M., Witell, L., Helkkula, A., Hogan, S. J., & Anderson, L. (2017).
The changing role of the health care customer: Review, synthesis and research agenda. Journal of
Service Management, 28(1), 2–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-01-2016-0018
Mendes, G. H., Oliveira, M. G., Gomide, E. H., & Nantes, J. F. D. (2017). Uncovering the structures and
maturity of the new service development research field through a bibliometric study (1984–2014).
Journal of Service Management, 28(1), 182–223. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-07-2015-0230
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Prisma Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for
systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Muñoz-Leiva, F., Sánchez-Fernández, J., Liébana-Cabanillas, F. J., & Martínez-Fiestas, M. (2013).
Detecting salient themes in financial marketing research from 1961 to 2010. The Service
Industries Journal, 33(9–10), 925–940. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2013.719884
Mustak, M., & Plé, L. (2020). A critical analysis of service ecosystems research: Rethinking its premises to
move forward. Journal of Services Marketing, 34(3), 399–413. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-02-2019-0084
Nansubuga, B., & Kowalkowski, C. (2021). Carsharing: A systematic literature review and research
agenda. Journal of Service Management, 32(6), 55–91. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-10-2020-0344
Neumann, W. L. (2012). Basics of social research: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (3rd ed.).
Pearson.
Ozseker, D. B. (2019). Towards a model of destination innovation process: An integrative review. The
Service Industries Journal, 39(3–4), 206–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2018.1491970
Palmatier, R. W., Houston, M. B., & Hulland, J. (2018). Review articles: Purpose, process, and structure.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0563-4
Pasca, M. G., Renzi, M. F., Di Pietro, L., & Mugion, R. G. (2021). Gamification in tourism and hospitality
research in the era of digital platforms: A systematic literature review. Journal of Service Theory
and Practice, 31(5), 691–737. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-05-2020-0094
Paul, J., & Benito, G. R. G. (2018). A review of research on outward foreign direct investment from
emerging countries, including China: what do we know, how do we know and where should
we be heading? Asia Pacific Business Review, 24(1), 90–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602381.
2017.1357316
Paul, J., & Criado, A. R. (2020). The art of writing literature review: What do we know and what do we
need to know? International Business Review, 29(4), 101717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.
2020.101717
Paul, J., Lim, W. M., O’Cass, A., Hao, A. W., & Bresciani, S. (2021). Scientific procedures and rationales
for systematic literature reviews (SPAR-4-SLR). International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(4),
O1–O16. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12695
Paul, J., & Mas, E. (2020). Toward a 7-P framework for international marketing. Journal of Strategic
Marketing, 28(8), 681–701. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2019.1569111
Paul, J., Merchant, A., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Rose, G. (2021). Writing an impactful review article: What do
we know and what do we need to know? Journal of Business Research, 133, 337–340. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.05.005
Paul, J., Parthasarathy, S., & Gupta, P. (2017). Exporting challenges of SMEs: A review and future
research agenda. Journal of World Business, 52(3), 327–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2017.
01.003
Post, C., Sarala, R., Gatrell, C., & Prescott, J. E. (2020). Advancing theory with review articles. Journal of
Management Studies, 57(2), 351–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12549
Prentice, C., Altinay, L., & Woodside, A. G. (2021). Transformative service research and COVID-19. The
Service Industries Journal, 41(1-2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2021.1883262
Rahman, A. (2020). Sources and categories of well-being: A systematic review and research agenda.
Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 31(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-01-2020-0024
Ranjan, K. R., Sugathan, P., & Rossmann, A. (2015). A narrative review and meta-analysis of service
interaction quality: New research directions and implications. Journal of Services Marketing, 29
(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-01-2014-0029
Riedel, A., Messenger, D., Fleischman, D., & Mulcahy, R. (2021). Consumers experiencing vulner-
ability: A state of play in the literature. Journal of Services Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JSM-12-2020-0496
Russo-Spena, T., Tregua, M., & Bifulco, F. (2017). Searching through the jungle of innovation concep-
tualisations: System, network and ecosystem perspectives. Journal of Service Theory and Practice,
27(5), 977–1005. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-10-2015-0224
Sharma, D., Taggar, R., Bindra, S., & Dhir, S. (2020). A systematic review of responsiveness to develop
future research agenda: A TCCM and bibliometric analysis. Benchmarking: An International
Journal, 27(9), 2649–2677. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-12-2019-0539
Silva, J. H., Mendes, G. H., Miguel, P. A. C., Amorim, M., & Teixeira, J. G. (2021). Customer experience
research: Intellectual structure and future research opportunities. Journal of Service Theory and
Practice, 31(6), 893–931. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-08-2020-0193
Singh, S., Akbani, I., & Dhir, S. (2020). Service innovation implementation: A systematic review and
research agenda. The Service Industries Journal, 40(7–8), 491–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02642069.2020.1731477
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal
of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Subramony, M., Groth, M., Hu, X. J., & Wu, Y. (2021). Four decades of frontline service employee
research: An integrative bibliometric review. Journal of Service Research, 24(2), 230–248. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1094670521999721
Tanrikulu, C. (2021). Theory of consumption values in consumer behaviour research: A review and
future research agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(4), 1176–1197. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ijcs.12687
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human
Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of
Management, 14(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
Valtakoski, A. (2019). The evolution and impact of qualitative research in Journal of Services
Marketing. Journal of Services Marketing, 34(1), 8–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-12-2018-0359
Van Pinxteren, M. M., Pluymaekers, M., & Lemmink, J. G. (2020). Human-like communication in con-
versational agents: A literature review and research agenda. Journal of Service Management, 31(2),
203–225. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-06-2019-0175
Varma, A., Kumar, S., Sureka, R., & Lim, W. M. (2022). What do we know about career and develop-
ment? Insights from Career Development International at age 25. Career Development
International, 27(1), 113–134. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-08-2021-0210
Verhulst, N., De Keyser, A., Gustafsson, A., Shams, P., & Van Vaerenbergh, Y. (2019). Neuroscience in
service research: An overview and discussion of its possibilities. Journal of Service Management, 30
(5), 621–649. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-05-2019-0135
Verleye, K. (2019). Designing, writing-up and reviewing case study research: An equifinality perspec-
tive. Journal of Service Management, 30(5), 549–576. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-08-2019-0257
Viglia, G., Kumar, S., Pandey, N., & Joshi, Y. (2022). Forty years of The Service Industries Journal: A bib-
liometric review. The Service Industries Journal, 42(1-2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.
2021.2003341
Wang, X., Wong, Y. D., Teo, C. C., & Yuen, K. F. (2019). A critical review on value co-creation: Towards a
contingency framework and research agenda. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 29(2), 165–
188. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-11-2017-0209
Wirtz, J., & Jerger, C. (2016). Managing service employees: Literature review, expert opinions, and
research directions. The Service Industries Journal, 36(15–16), 757–788. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02642069.2016.1278432
Wong, C. Y. (2021). Editorial. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
51(3), 205–211. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-04-2021-410
Zainuddin, N., & Gordon, R. (2020). Value creation and destruction in social marketing services: A
review and research agenda. Journal of Services Marketing, 34(3), 347–361. https://doi.org/10.
1108/JSM-01-2019-0046

Lim, 2022, How To Systematic Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lim, 2022, How To Systematic Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Service Industries Journal

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fsij20

Advancing knowledge through literature reviews:

Weng Marc Lim, Satish Kumar & Faizan Ali

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2022.2047941

Published online: 15 Mar 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 8403

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 77 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Advancing knowledge through literature reviews: ‘what’,

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Table 1. Types of research.

Moreover, the contribution of independent literature reviews is often challenged

Figure 1. Distribution of reviews in mainstream service journals.

What a literature review is and is not

Table 2. Mapping the value of the present article.

Table 3. Characteristics of a literature review.

Instead, a literature review is intended to consolidate existing knowledge to support and

Why literature reviews are valuable

Table 4. Value of literature reviews.

the limitation imposed by publication outlets, wherein the coverage of information is

How to conduct a literature review

Approaches to literature reviews

THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL

(1) the deﬁnition, core tenets, and importance of the theory,

Approaches to literature reviews as independent studies

Table 7. Protocols and procedures for literature reviews as independent studies.

Protocol: SPAR-4-SLR (Paul, Lim, et al.,

Procedure: The literature review Phase 1: Design the review

Phase 2: Conduct the review

Procedure: The ﬁve-stage framework Stage 1: Problem formulation

Types of literature reviews

THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL

Method and theory reviews

statistical assessment of results from previous meta-analyses on a common set of relation-

The future of literature reviews

Areas in service research for literature reviews

. customer behavior in service settings,

. customer relationship building and management in omnichannel service settings (e.g.

THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL

Innovation in literature reviews

. Combine diﬀerent analytical techniques (e.g. bibliographic coupling + co-occurrence

You might also like