Exploring search strategy for systematic literature review: evidence from the International Journal of Management Reviews
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/btp.2025.22033Abstract
Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) advance management theory and practice by synthesizing knowledge in a structured and transparent manner. However, inconsistent reporting of search strategies limits replicability and methodological rigor. To address this gap in reporting standards, the main objective of this article is to explore successful search strategies for SLRs in management research. We further propose a distinction between transparency (conceptual replication) and practical replication to clarify what constitutes a replicable review in this field. We conducted a systematic review of 57 SLRs published in the International Journal of Management Reviews and propose five criteria that search strategy reporting should meet to ensure replicability: (1) provision of a search query, (2) reporting of the query execution date, (3) indication of the search timespan, (4) clear presentation of inclusion/exclusion criteria, and (5) specification of the document sections screened (e.g., title, abstract, full text). Our findings show that most reviews support conceptual replication by providing the search query, timespan, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and screened document sections; however, practical replication remains rare due to missing details – especially the search execution date. To improve future SLRs, we recommend: (1) disclosing the review team’s underlying research paradigms and beliefs to clarify the perspective behind the synthesis, and (2) ensuring diverse team composition from the outset – or, if constrained, explicitly acknowledging such limitations. Ideally, review teams should encompass diverse contexts and paradigms aligned with the scope of the review.
Keywords:
systematic literature review, search strategy, search strategy replicability, management, management researchHow to Cite
Share
License
Copyright (c) 2025 The Author(s). Published by Vilnius Gediminas Technical University.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Adams, R. J., Smart, P., & Huff, A. S. (2017). Shades of grey: Guidelines for working with the grey literature in systematic reviews for management and organizational studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(4), 432–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12102
Aguinis, H., Ramani, R. S., & Alabduljader, N. (2018). What you see is what you get? Enhancing methodological transparency in management research. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 83–110. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0011
Ali, N. B., & Usman, M. (2018). Reliability of search in systematic reviews: Towards a quality assessment framework for the automated-search strategy. Information and Software Technology, 99, 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2018.02.002
Booth, A., Sutton, A., Clowes, M., & James, M. M. (2021). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Ltd.
Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2021). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review (2th ed.). Sage Publications.
Booth, A. (2006). ‘Brimful of STARLITE’: Toward standards for reporting literature searches. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 94(4), 421–429.
Cook, D. J., Greengold, N. L., & Ellrodt, A. G. (1997a). The relation between systematic reviews and practice guidelines. Annals of Internal Medicine, 127(3), 210–216. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-127-3-199708010-00006
Cook, D. J., Mulrow, C. D., & Haynes, R. B. (1997b). Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine, 126(5), 376–380. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-126-5-199703010-00006
Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (1994). The handbook of research synthesis. Rusell Sage Foundation.
Davies, H. T. O., & Nutley, S. M. (1999). Rise and rise of evidence in health care. Public Money & Management, 19(1), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9302.00147
Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review. In D. Buchanan & A. Bryman (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational research methods (pp. 671–689). SAGE.
Evans, D., & Pearson, A. (2001). Systematic reviews: Gatekeepers of nursing knowledge. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 10(5), 593–599. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2702.2001.00517.x
Fisch, C., & Block, J. (2018). Six tips for your (systematic) literature review in business and management research. Management Review Quarterly, 68, 103–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-018-0142-x
Frank, H., & Hatak, I. (2014). Doing a research literature review. In A. Fayolle & M. Wright (Eds.), How to get published in the best entrepreneurship journals (pp. 94–117). Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781782540625.00012
Geddes, J., Freemantle, N., Streiner, D., & Reynolds, S. (1998). Understanding and interpreting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Part 1: Rationale, search strategy, and describing results. Evidence-Based Mental Health, 1(3), 68–69. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmh.1.3.68
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., MacFarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly, 82, 581–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x
Harding, L., Marra, C. J., & Illes, J. (2021). Establishing a comprehensive search strategy for Indigenous health literature reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01664-y
Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2013). Organization theory: Modern, symbolic and postmodern perspectives. Oxford University Press.
Hausner, E., Waffenschmidt, S., Kaiser, T., & Simon, M. (2012). Routine development of objectively derived search strategies. Systematic Reviews, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-19
Kosch, O., & Szarucki, M. (2020). Transatlantic affiliations of scientific collaboration in strategic management: A quarter-century of bibliometric evidence. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 21(3), 627–646. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2020.12395
Kosch, O., & Szarucki, M. (2021). An overview of 25 years of European scientific collaboration in the field of strategic management: A bibliometric analysis. European Management Review, 18(1), 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12401
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Laycock, G. (2000). From central research to local practice: Identifying and addressing repeat victimization. Public Money & Management, 20(4), 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9302.00231
Lefebvre, C., Glanville, J., Briscoe, S., Littlewood, A., Marshall, C., Metzendorf, M.-I., Noel-Storr, A., Rader, T., Shokraneh, J. T., Wieland, S. (2021). Chapter 4: Searching for and selecting studies. In J. P. T. Higgins, J. Thomas, J. Chandler, M. Cumpston, T. Li, Page, M., Welch, V., & Flemyng, E. (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (version 6). Cochrane. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
Lemak, D. J. (2004). Leading students through the management theory jungle by following the path of the seminal theorists: A paradigmatic approach. Management Decision, 42(10), 1309–1325. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740410568999
Leseure, M. J., Bauer, J., Birdi, K., Neely, A., & Denyer, D. (2004). Adoption of promising practices: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5–6(3–4), 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-8545.2004.00102.x
Levy, P. E., & Williams, J. R. (2004). The social context of performance appraisal: A review and framework for the future. Journal of Management, 30(6), 881–905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.005
Linnenluecke, M. K., Marrone, M., & Singh, A. K. (2020). Conducting systematic literature reviews and bibliometric analyses. Australian Journal of Management, 45(2), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896219877678
Macdonald, G. (1999). Evidence-based social care: Wheels off the runway? Public Money & Management, 19(1), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9302.00149
Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., & Neely, A. (2004). Networking and innovation: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5–6(3–4), 137–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-8545.2004.00101.x
Rethlefsen, M. L., Farrell, A. M., Osterhaus Trzasko, L. C., & Brigham, T. J. (2015). Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(6), 617–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.025
Rethlefsen, M. L., Kirtley, S., Waffenschmidt, S., Ayala, A. P., Moher, D., Page, M. J., Koffel, J. B., & PRISMA-S Group (2021). PRISMA-S: An extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10, Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z
Rojon, C., Okupe, A., & McDowall, A. (2021). Utilization and development of systematic reviews in management research: What do we know and where do we go from here? International Journal of Management Reviews, 23(2), 191–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12245
Rousseau, D. M. (Ed.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of evidence-based management. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199763986.001.0001
Shepherd, C., & Challenger, R. (2013). Revisiting paradigm(s) in management research: A rhetorical analysis of the paradigm wars. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(2), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12004
Thorpe, R., Holt, R., Macpherson, A., & Pittaway, L. (2005). Using knowledge within small and medium-sized firms: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(4), 257–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2005.00116.x
Tourani, S., Aryankhesal, A., & Behzadifar, M. (2017). Improving the search strategy of systematic reviews and meta-analysis. International Journal of Community Based Nursing and Midwifery, 5(4), 417–418.
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
Wohlin, C. (2014). Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. EASE ‘14: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (pp. 1–10). ACM Digital Library. https://doi.org/10.1145/2601248.2601268
Wohlin, C., Mendes, E., Felizardo, K. R., & Kalinowski, M. (2020). Guidelines for the search strategy to update systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Information and Software Technology, 127, Article 106366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2020.106366
Wolf, F. M., Shea, J. A., & Albanese, M. A. (2001). Toward setting a research agenda for systematic reviews of evidence of the effects of medical education. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 13(1), 54–60. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328015TLM1301_11
CrossMark check
Published
Issue
Section
Copyright
Copyright (c) 2025 The Author(s). Published by Vilnius Gediminas Technical University.
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.