Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews
•We proposed a typology of nine review types based on seven core dimensions.•The number of reviews in top-ranked IS journals has increased between 1999 and 2013.•Theoretical and narrative reviews are the most prevalent types in top IS journals.•We found inconsistencies in the labels used by authors...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Information & management 2015-03, Vol.52 (2), p.183-199 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 199 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 183 |
| container_title | Information & management |
| container_volume | 52 |
| creator | Paré, Guy Trudel, Marie-Claude Jaana, Mirou Kitsiou, Spyros |
| description | •We proposed a typology of nine review types based on seven core dimensions.•The number of reviews in top-ranked IS journals has increased between 1999 and 2013.•Theoretical and narrative reviews are the most prevalent types in top IS journals.•We found inconsistencies in the labels used by authors to qualify IS reviews.•A majority of IS reviews reported only scholars as their target audience.
In this article we develop a typology of review types and provide a descriptive insight into the most common reviews found in top IS journals. Our assessment reveals that the number of IS reviews has increased over the years. The majority of the 139 reviews are theoretical in nature, followed by narrative reviews, meta-analyses, descriptive reviews, hybrid reviews, critical reviews, and scoping reviews. Considering the calls for IS research to develop a cumulative tradition, we hope more review articles will be published in the future and encourage researchers who start a review to use our typology to position their contribution. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1652776485</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0378720614001116</els_id><sourcerecordid>3585154161</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c376t-d21e1590a601240e54c5d6eb116d0d1aa304ce563ed95a6cc64e153b14f03f403</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kLtPwzAQhy0EEqWwM1piTjjnYSfdqoqXVIkBmK3UvhSHJC62Cwp_Pa7Kyi23fN89foRcM0gZMH7bpWZIM2BFClUKUJ2QGatElogyh1Myg1xUiciAn5ML7zuIJep6RtYv0xje0ZsfM26pGVvrhiYYO1I_-YCDpx-j_e5Rb3FBlzRMO9vb7URtS3sT0DVh75A6_DL47S_JWdv0Hq_--py83d-9rh6T9fPD02q5TlQueEh0xpCVNTQcWFYAloUqNccNY1yDZk2TQ6Gw5Dnqumy4UryIfL5hRQt5W0A-JzfHuTtnP_fog-zs3o1xpWS8zITgRVVGCo6UctZ7h63cOTM0bpIM5CEz2UkzyENmEioZM4vK4qhgvD6-5KRXBkeF2jhUQWpr_pd_AZwrdAk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1652776485</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Paré, Guy ; Trudel, Marie-Claude ; Jaana, Mirou ; Kitsiou, Spyros</creator><creatorcontrib>Paré, Guy ; Trudel, Marie-Claude ; Jaana, Mirou ; Kitsiou, Spyros</creatorcontrib><description>•We proposed a typology of nine review types based on seven core dimensions.•The number of reviews in top-ranked IS journals has increased between 1999 and 2013.•Theoretical and narrative reviews are the most prevalent types in top IS journals.•We found inconsistencies in the labels used by authors to qualify IS reviews.•A majority of IS reviews reported only scholars as their target audience.
In this article we develop a typology of review types and provide a descriptive insight into the most common reviews found in top IS journals. Our assessment reveals that the number of IS reviews has increased over the years. The majority of the 139 reviews are theoretical in nature, followed by narrative reviews, meta-analyses, descriptive reviews, hybrid reviews, critical reviews, and scoping reviews. Considering the calls for IS research to develop a cumulative tradition, we hope more review articles will be published in the future and encourage researchers who start a review to use our typology to position their contribution.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0378-7206</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-7530</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008</identifier><identifier>CODEN: IMANDC</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Evidence-based practice ; Information systems ; Literature review ; Meta-analysis ; Research synthesis ; Studies ; Typology</subject><ispartof>Information & management, 2015-03, Vol.52 (2), p.183-199</ispartof><rights>2014 Elsevier B.V.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Sequoia S.A. Mar 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c376t-d21e1590a601240e54c5d6eb116d0d1aa304ce563ed95a6cc64e153b14f03f403</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c376t-d21e1590a601240e54c5d6eb116d0d1aa304ce563ed95a6cc64e153b14f03f403</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,3537,27905,27906,45976</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Paré, Guy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Trudel, Marie-Claude</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jaana, Mirou</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kitsiou, Spyros</creatorcontrib><title>Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews</title><title>Information & management</title><description>•We proposed a typology of nine review types based on seven core dimensions.•The number of reviews in top-ranked IS journals has increased between 1999 and 2013.•Theoretical and narrative reviews are the most prevalent types in top IS journals.•We found inconsistencies in the labels used by authors to qualify IS reviews.•A majority of IS reviews reported only scholars as their target audience.
In this article we develop a typology of review types and provide a descriptive insight into the most common reviews found in top IS journals. Our assessment reveals that the number of IS reviews has increased over the years. The majority of the 139 reviews are theoretical in nature, followed by narrative reviews, meta-analyses, descriptive reviews, hybrid reviews, critical reviews, and scoping reviews. Considering the calls for IS research to develop a cumulative tradition, we hope more review articles will be published in the future and encourage researchers who start a review to use our typology to position their contribution.</description><subject>Evidence-based practice</subject><subject>Information systems</subject><subject>Literature review</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Research synthesis</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Typology</subject><issn>0378-7206</issn><issn>1872-7530</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kLtPwzAQhy0EEqWwM1piTjjnYSfdqoqXVIkBmK3UvhSHJC62Cwp_Pa7Kyi23fN89foRcM0gZMH7bpWZIM2BFClUKUJ2QGatElogyh1Myg1xUiciAn5ML7zuIJep6RtYv0xje0ZsfM26pGVvrhiYYO1I_-YCDpx-j_e5Rb3FBlzRMO9vb7URtS3sT0DVh75A6_DL47S_JWdv0Hq_--py83d-9rh6T9fPD02q5TlQueEh0xpCVNTQcWFYAloUqNccNY1yDZk2TQ6Gw5Dnqumy4UryIfL5hRQt5W0A-JzfHuTtnP_fog-zs3o1xpWS8zITgRVVGCo6UctZ7h63cOTM0bpIM5CEz2UkzyENmEioZM4vK4qhgvD6-5KRXBkeF2jhUQWpr_pd_AZwrdAk</recordid><startdate>20150301</startdate><enddate>20150301</enddate><creator>Paré, Guy</creator><creator>Trudel, Marie-Claude</creator><creator>Jaana, Mirou</creator><creator>Kitsiou, Spyros</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier Sequoia S.A</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>JQ2</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150301</creationdate><title>Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews</title><author>Paré, Guy ; Trudel, Marie-Claude ; Jaana, Mirou ; Kitsiou, Spyros</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c376t-d21e1590a601240e54c5d6eb116d0d1aa304ce563ed95a6cc64e153b14f03f403</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Evidence-based practice</topic><topic>Information systems</topic><topic>Literature review</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Research synthesis</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Typology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Paré, Guy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Trudel, Marie-Claude</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jaana, Mirou</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kitsiou, Spyros</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><jtitle>Information & management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Paré, Guy</au><au>Trudel, Marie-Claude</au><au>Jaana, Mirou</au><au>Kitsiou, Spyros</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews</atitle><jtitle>Information & management</jtitle><date>2015-03-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>52</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>183</spage><epage>199</epage><pages>183-199</pages><issn>0378-7206</issn><eissn>1872-7530</eissn><coden>IMANDC</coden><abstract>•We proposed a typology of nine review types based on seven core dimensions.•The number of reviews in top-ranked IS journals has increased between 1999 and 2013.•Theoretical and narrative reviews are the most prevalent types in top IS journals.•We found inconsistencies in the labels used by authors to qualify IS reviews.•A majority of IS reviews reported only scholars as their target audience.
In this article we develop a typology of review types and provide a descriptive insight into the most common reviews found in top IS journals. Our assessment reveals that the number of IS reviews has increased over the years. The majority of the 139 reviews are theoretical in nature, followed by narrative reviews, meta-analyses, descriptive reviews, hybrid reviews, critical reviews, and scoping reviews. Considering the calls for IS research to develop a cumulative tradition, we hope more review articles will be published in the future and encourage researchers who start a review to use our typology to position their contribution.</abstract><cop>Amsterdam</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008</doi><tpages>17</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0378-7206 |
| ispartof | Information & management, 2015-03, Vol.52 (2), p.183-199 |
| issn | 0378-7206 1872-7530 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1652776485 |
| source | Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
| subjects | Evidence-based practice Information systems Literature review Meta-analysis Research synthesis Studies Typology |
| title | Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T03%3A53%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Synthesizing%20information%20systems%20knowledge:%20A%20typology%20of%20literature%20reviews&rft.jtitle=Information%20&%20management&rft.au=Par%C3%A9,%20Guy&rft.date=2015-03-01&rft.volume=52&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=183&rft.epage=199&rft.pages=183-199&rft.issn=0378-7206&rft.eissn=1872-7530&rft.coden=IMANDC&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3585154161%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1652776485&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0378720614001116&rfr_iscdi=true |