LITERATURE REVIEW TYPES IN ACADEMIC RESEARCH
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v13i1.6468Keywords:
literature review, research methodology, knowledge synthesis, epistemology, systematic review taxonomyAbstract
Literature reviews constitute foundational components of scholarly inquiry, yet persistent taxonomic ambiguity regarding their typology, terminology, and methodological specifications impedes rigorous research design and compromises the epistemological coherence of knowledge synthesis efforts. This study systematically identifies, defines, categorises, and critically compares twenty major literature review types employed in contemporary academic research, developing a comprehensive decision framework to guide methodologically sound review selection and implementation. Employing a qualitative comparative analysis combined with systematic thematic synthesis of methodological literature, we analysed peer-reviewed articles, methodological guidelines from established repositories, and taxonomy frameworks. The analysis yielded four principal contributions. First, definitional clarification established precise, operationalizable definitions for twenty review types, including systematic, meta-analysis, scoping, mapping, narrative, critical, rapid, integrative, umbrella, qualitative evidence synthesis, realist, mixed methods, state-of-the-art, systematised, bibliometric, historical, conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and living reviews. Second, taxonomic organisation developed a hierarchical classification system structured around four epistemological orientations: positivist-aggregative, interpretivist-constructivist, critical-transformative, and pragmatic-mixed. Third, comparative analysis examined each review type across two dimensions: core selection drivers (research purpose, question characteristics, evidence type, resource constraints, epistemological stance, common frameworks, intended audience) and operational design choices (search comprehensiveness, appraisal requirements, synthesis approach, reporting standards, typical outcomes). Fourth, an evidence-based decision framework comprising six sequential decision points was developed to guide researchers from research context to appropriate methodology selection. Findings demonstrate that literature review types represent more than procedural variations; they embody distinct epistemological commitments and serve fundamentally different knowledge-building functions. Quality criteria must therefore be orientation-specific rather than universal. The proposed taxonomy reveals legitimate methodological diversity that cannot be reduced to hierarchical quality rankings. This framework provides researchers, educators, journal editors, and peer reviewers with systematic guidance for review type selection based on research purpose, epistemological stance, resource constraints, and disciplinary conventions, ultimately strengthening evidence synthesis quality and methodological transparency across academic disciplines.
Article visualizations:
References
Aguinis, H., Ramani, R. S., & Alabduljader, N. (2020). Best-Practice Recommendations for Producers, Evaluators, and Users of Methodological Literature Reviews. Organizational Research Methods, 26, 46–76. 10.1177/1094428120943281
Akl, E. A., Meerpohl, J. J., Elliott, J., Kahale, L. A., Schunemann, H. J., & Living Systematic Review, N. (2017). Living systematic reviews: 4. Living guideline recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol, 91, 47–53. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.009
Alajami, A. (2021). Critiquing the past for solidifying the future: Understanding the synthesizing facet of reviewing the social studies: Critical approach. Current Research in Behavioral Sciences, 2. 10.1016/j.crbeha.2021.100047
Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. 10.1080/1364557032000119616
Aromataris, E., Fernandez, R., Godfrey, C. M., Holly, C., Khalil, H., & Tungpunkom, P. (2015). Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. Int J Evid Based Healthc, 13(3), 132–140. 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055
Bibb, S. C., & Wanzer, L. J. (2008). Determining the Evidence in the Perioperative Environment: Standardizing Research Process Tools for Conducting the Integrative Literature Review. Perioperative Nursing Clinics, 3(1), 1–17. 10.1016/j.cpen.2007.11.001
Booth, A., Sutton, A., Clowes, M., & James, M. M. S. (2022). Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review. SAGE. https://books.google.pt/books?id=bet8zgEACAAJ
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to Meta‐Analysis. Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470743386
Bush, A. A., & Amechi, M. H. (2019). Conducting and presenting qualitative research in pharmacy education. Curr Pharm Teach Learn, 11(6), 638–650. 10.1016/j.cptl.2019.02.030
Carter-Templeton, H., Wrigley, J., Nicoll, L. H., Owens, J. K., Oermann, M. H., & Ledbetter, L. S. (2023). A Bibliometric Analysis of Review Types Published in the Nursing Scientific Literature. ANS Adv Nurs Sci, 46(1), 28–40. 10.1097/ANS.0000000000000424
Conde, M. Á., & Rodríguez-Sedano, F. J. (2024). Is learning analytics applicable and applied to education of students with intellectual/developmental disabilities? A systematic literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 155. 10.1016/j.chb.2024.108184
Cronin, P., Ryan, F., & Coughlan, M. (2008). Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach. Br J Nurs, 17(1), 38–43. 10.12968/bjon.2008.17.1.28059
Darke, P., & Shanks, G. (2002). Case study research. 10.1016/B978-1-876938-42-0.50014-9
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. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
Downie, L. E., Britten-Jones, A. C., Hogg, R. E., Jalbert, I., Li, T., Lingham, G., Liu, S. H., Qureshi, R., Saldanha, I. J., Singh, S., & Craig, J. P. (2023). TFOS Lifestyle - Evidence quality report: Advancing the evaluation and synthesis of research evidence. Ocul Surf, 28, 200–212. 10.1016/j.jtos.2023.04.009
Durai, S. (2021). Designing the Literature Review. Indian Journal of Continuing Nursing Education, 22(1), 75–79. 10.4103/ijcn.ijcn_51_21
Elliott, J. H., Synnot, A., Turner, T., Simmonds, M., Akl, E. A., McDonald, S., Salanti, G., Meerpohl, J., MacLehose, H., Hilton, J., Tovey, D., Shemilt, I., Thomas, J., & Living Systematic Review, N. (2017). Living systematic review: 1. Introduction-the why, what, when, and how. J Clin Epidemiol, 91, 23–30. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.010
Freedland, K. E., King, A. C., Ambrosius, W. T., Mayo-Wilson, E., Mohr, D. C., Czajkowski, S. M., Thabane, L., Collins, L. M., Rebok, G. W., Treweek, S. P., Cook, T. D., Edinger, J. D., Stoney, C. M., Campo, R. A., Young-Hyman, D., Riley, W. T., National Institutes of Health Office of, B., Social Sciences Research Expert Panel on Comparator Selection in, B., & Social Science Clinical, T. (2019). The selection of comparators for randomized controlled trials of health-related behavioral interventions: recommendations of an NIH expert panel. J Clin Epidemiol, 110, 74–81. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.02.011
Ganann, R., Ciliska, D., & Thomas, H. (2010). Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implement Sci, 5, 56. 10.1186/1748-5908-5-56
Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2012). Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Syst Rev, 1, 28. 10.1186/2046-4053-1-28
Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews. SAGE Publications.
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J, 26(2), 91–108. 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Green, B. N., Johnson, C. D., & Adams, A. (2006). Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. J Chiropr Med, 5(3), 101–117. 10.1016/S0899-3467(07)60142-6
Grunewald, M. E., Koomen, E., van Loon, L. M., Gupta, A., Vernooij, R. W. M., van Solinge, W. W., Kappen, T., & Haitjema, S. (2025). Beyond the numbers: the importance of contextual data when reusing blood pressure data from electronic health records. Front Digit Health, 7, 1664213. 10.3389/fdgth.2025.1664213
Haddaway, N. R., Lotfi, T., & Mbuagbaw, L. (2023). Systematic reviews: A glossary for public health. Scand J Public Health, 51(1), 1–10. 10.1177/14034948221074998
Heyvaert, M., Hannes, K., Maes, B., & Onghena, P. (2013). Critical Appraisal of Mixed Methods Studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(4), 302–327. 10.1177/1558689813479449
Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (2019). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (J. Higgins & J. Thomas, Eds. 2 ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781119536604
Hirata, E., Sunio, V., Thompson, R. G., & Foliente, G. (2025). Toward greener logistics: uncovering key enablers of the physical internet using AI-powered theme analysis. Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain, 17. 10.1016/j.clscn.2025.100263
Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: four approaches. AMS Review, 10(1-2), 18–26. 10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0
James, K. L., Randall, N. P., & Haddaway, N. R. (2016). A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environmental Evidence, 5(1). 10.1186/s13750-016-0059-6
Kadi, I., Idri, A., & Fernandez-Aleman, J. L. (2017). Knowledge discovery in cardiology: A systematic literature review. Int J Med Inform, 97, 12–32. 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.09.005
Kim, M., & Kim, Y.-W. (2024). Applications of blockchain for construction project procurement. Automation in Construction, 165. 10.1016/j.autcon.2024.105550
Kohda, Y. (2022). A critical knowledge management question in the artificial intelligence era: “can humans learn from artificial intelligence or not?”. In F.-J. Calzada-Prado (Ed.), Boosting the Knowledge Economy (pp. 23–38). Chandos Publishing. 10.1016/b978-1-84334-772-9.00006-3
Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci, 5, 69. 10.1186/1748-5908-5-69
Mannan, A., Kahtan, H., Mustafa, M. B., Ahmad, R., Abdulhak, M., & Atiquzzaman, M. (2025). Mobility challenges and issues in unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) path planning: A systematic review. Computer Networks, 273. 10.1016/j.comnet.2025.111766
Miake-Lye, I. M., Hempel, S., Shanman, R., & Shekelle, P. G. (2016). What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products. Syst Rev, 5(1), 28. 10.1186/s13643-016-0204-x
Mueller, M., D'Addario, M., Egger, M., Cevallos, M., Dekkers, O., Mugglin, C., & Scott, P. (2018). Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations. BMC Med Res Methodol, 18(1), 44. 10.1186/s12874-018-0495-9
Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol, 18(1), 143. 10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
Neely, J. G., Magit, A. E., Rich, J. T., Voelker, C. C., Wang, E. W., Paniello, R. C., Nussenbaum, B., & Bradley, J. P. (2010). A practical guide to understanding systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 142(1), 6–14. 10.1016/j.otohns.2009.09.005
Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies. SAGE Publications. https://books.google.pt/books?id=fQQb4FP4NSgC
Noyes, J., Booth, A., Flemming, K., Garside, R., Harden, A., Lewin, S., Pantoja, T., Hannes, K., Cargo, M., & Thomas, J. (2018). Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-paper 3: methods for assessing methodological limitations, data extraction and synthesis, and confidence in synthesized qualitative findings. J Clin Epidemiol, 97, 49–58. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.020
Palmatier, R. W., Houston, M. B., & Hulland, J. (2017). Review articles: purpose, process, and structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(1), 1–5. 10.1007/s11747-017-0563-4
Paré, G., Trudel, M.-C., Jaana, M., & Kitsiou, S. (2015). Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management, 52(2), 183–199. 10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008
Pawson, R., Greenhalgh, T., Harvey, G., & Walshe, K. (2005). Realist review--a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy, 10 Suppl 1, 21–34. 10.1258/1355819054308530
Peters, M., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., Trico, A., & Khalil, H. (2020). Chapter 11: Scoping reviews. In JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI. 10.46658/jbimes-20-12
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. John Wiley & Sons.
Piwowar-Sulej, K., Krzywonos, M., & Kwil, I. (2021). Environmental entrepreneurship – Bibliometric and content analysis of the subject literature based on H-Core. Journal of Cleaner Production, 295. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126277
Premji, Z., & Cabugos, L. (2023). Examining the meaning and methodological characteristics of the systematized review label: A scoping review protocol. PLOS ONE, 18(9), e0291145. 10.1371/journal.pone.0291145
Price, C. (2022). Syntheses Synthesized: A Look Back at Grant and Booth's Review Typology. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 17(2), 132–138. 10.18438/eblip30093
Rosário, A. T., & Dias, J. C. (2023). How has data-driven marketing evolved: Challenges and opportunities with emerging technologies. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, 3(2). 10.1016/j.jjimei.2023.100203
Rowlinson, M., Hassard, J., & Decker, S. (2014). Research Strategies for Organizational History: A Dialogue Between Historical Theory and Organization Theory. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 250–274. 10.5465/amr.2012.0203
Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2007). Handbook for Synthesizing Qualitative Research. Springer Publishing Company. https://books.google.pt/books?id=0I6KBQAAQBAJ
Schick-Makaroff, K., MacDonald, M., Plummer, M., Burgess, J., & Neander, W. (2016). What Synthesis Methodology Should I Use? A Review and Analysis of Approaches to Research Synthesis. AIMS public health, 3(1), 172–215. 10.3934/publichealth.2016.1.172
Schwarze, J. E., Tennant, P. W. G., Barnhart, K., Platt, R. W., Gupta, S., Venetis, C., D'Hooghe, T., & Schisterman, E. F. (2025). Recommendation to improve the rigor and impact of nonrandomized studies of interventions in fertility treatment research. Fertil Steril, 124(4), 749–758. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.05.168
Sharma, N., Arahna, V. P., Saxena, S., Ateef, M., & Samuel, A. J. (2022). Scoping out the scope of scoping reviews in neonatal and pediatric pain management: A scoping review methodological framework. J Pediatr Surg, 57(8), 1599–1608. 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2021.11.012
Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019). Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Info Libr J, 36(3), 202–222. 10.1111/hir.12276
Tricco, A. C., Antony, J., Zarin, W., Strifler, L., Ghassemi, M., Ivory, J., Perrier, L., Hutton, B., Moher, D., & Straus, S. E. (2015). A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med, 13(1), 224. 10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6
Unal, E., Giakoumidakis, K., Khan, E., & Patelarou, E. (2018). Mobile phone text messaging for improving secondary prevention in cardiovascular diseases: A systematic review. Heart Lung, 47(4), 351–359. 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2018.05.009
Welch, S., Lahr, E., & Webb, J. (2022). Researching and Conceptualizing an Effective Literature Review. Methodological Innovations in Research and Academic Writing. 10.4018/978-1-7998-8283-1.ch012
Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: updated methodology. J Adv Nurs, 52(5), 546–553. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x
Williamson, K., & Johanson, G. (Eds.). (2018). Research methods: Information, systems, and contexts (2 ed.). Chandos Publishing. 10.1016/C2016-0-03932-3.
Wong, G., Greenhalgh, T., Westhorp, G., Buckingham, J., & Pawson, R. (2013). RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. BMC Med, 11(1), 21. 10.1186/1741-7015-11-21
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
