Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Systematic literature reviews are an increasingly used review methodology to synthesize the existing body of literature in a field. However, editors complain about a high number of desk rejections because of a lack in quality. Poorly developed review articles are not published because of a perceived lack of contribution to the field. Our article supports authors of standalone papers and graduate students in the Entrepreneurship domain to write contribution-focused systematic reviews e.g. by providing a concrete guideline. Our article analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of a systematic literature review and how they can be overcome. Furthermore, we provide a combined list of highly ranked journals in the Entrepreneurship domain as a basis for quality appraisal. Finally, this article builds a scenario for the future of the systematic literature review methodology and shows how technological improvements have changed this methodology and what can be achieved in the future.
Akinci, C., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2012). Intuition in management research: A historical review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(1), 104–122. CrossRef
Armitage, A., & Keeble-Allen, D. Undertaking a structured literature review or structuring a literature review: tales from the field. In Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies: ECRM2008, Regent's College, London, 2008 (pp. 35).
Bem, D. J. (1995). Writing a review article for psychological bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 118(2), 172. CrossRef
von Bloh, J., Broekel, T., Özgun, B., & Sternberg, R. (2019). New (s) data for entrepreneurship research? An innovative approach to use big data on media coverage. Small Business Economics, 1–22.
Bouncken, R. B., Gast, J., Kraus, S., & Bogers, M. (2015). Coopetition: A systematic review, synthesis, and future research directions Review of Managerial Science, 9(3), 24.
Bramer, W. M., Rethlefsen, M. L., Kleijnen, J., & Franco, O. H. (2017). Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: A prospective exploratory study. Systematic Reviews, 6(1), 245. CrossRef
Briner, R. B., & Denyer, D. (2012). Systematic review and evidence synthesis as a practice and scholarship tool. In D. M. Rousseau (Ed.), Handbook of evidence-based management: Companies, classrooms and research (p. 17). New York: Oxford University Press.
Calabrò, A., Vecchiarini, M., Gast, J., Campopiano, G., De Massis, A., & Kraus, S. (2019). Innovation in family firms: A systematic literature review and guidance for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 21(3), 317–355. CrossRef
Davies, H. T., & Nutley, S. M. (1999). The rise and rise of evidence in health care. Public money and management, 19(1), 9–16. CrossRef
De Bakker, F. G., Groenewegen, P., & Den Hond, F. (2005). A bibliometric analysis of 30 years of research and theory on corporate social responsibility and corporate social performance. Business & Society, 44(3), 283–317. CrossRef
Denyer, D., & Neely, A. (2004). Introduction to special issue: Innovation and productivity performance in the UK. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5(3–4), 131–135. CrossRef
Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2006). Using qualitative research synthesis to build an actionable knowledge base. Management Decision, 44(2), 213–227. CrossRef
Dorn, S., Schweiger, B., & Albers, S. (2016). Levels, phases and themes of coopetition: A systematic literature review and research agenda. European Management Journal, 34(5), 484–500. CrossRef
Ferreira, J. J. M., Fernandes, C. I., & Kraus, S. (2019). Entrepreneurship research: Mapping intellectual structures and research trends. [journal article]. Review of Managerial Science, 13(1), 181–205. CrossRef
Fisch, C., & Block, J. (2018). Six tips for your (systematic) literature review in business and management research. Management Review Quarterly, 68(3).
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: A guide to steer your academic career (p. 23). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2019). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google scholar, PubMed and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods.
Hakala, H. (2011). Strategic orientations in management literature: Three approaches to understanding the interaction between market, technology, entrepreneurial and learning orientations. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(2), 199–217. CrossRef
Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review. London: Sage Publications.
Heath, M., & Tynan, C. (2010). Crafting a research proposal. The Marketing Review, 10(2), 147–168. CrossRef
Hodgkinson, G. P., & Ford, J. K. (2014). Narrative, meta-analytic, and systematic reviews: What are the differences and why do they matter? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(S1), S1–S5. CrossRef
Hodgkinson, G. P., & Ford, J. K. (2015). What makes excellent literature reviews excellent? A clarification of some common mistakes and misconceptions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(S1), S1–S5. CrossRef
Jones, O., & Gatrell, C. (2014). Editorial: The future of writing and reviewing for IJMR. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16, 249–264. CrossRef
Jones, M. V., Coviello, N., & Tang, Y. K. (2011). International entrepreneurship research (1989–2009): A domain ontology and thematic analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(6), 632–659. CrossRef
Kaminski, J. C., & Hopp, C. (2019). Predicting outcomes in crowdfunding campaigns with textual, visual, and linguistic signals. Small Business Economics, 1–23.
Knopf, J. W. (2006). Doing a literature review. PS: Political Science and Politcs, 39(1), 5.
Light, R., & Smith, P. (1971). Accumulating evidence: Procedures for resolving contradictions among different research studies. Harvard Educational Review, 41(4), 429–471. CrossRef
Liñán, F., & Fayolle, A. (2015). A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: Citation, thematic analyses, and research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(4), 907–933. CrossRef
Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & De Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435(7043), 737–738. CrossRef
Mulrow, C. D. (1994). Systematic reviews: Rationale for systematic reviews. British Medical Journal, 309, 597–599. CrossRef
Newbert, S. L. (2007). Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: An assessment and suggestions for future research. Strategic Management Journal, 28(2), 121–146. CrossRef
Oakley, A. (2002). Social science and evidence-based everything: The case of education. Education Review, 54, 277–286. CrossRef
Ohlsson, A. (1994). Systematic reviews-theory and practice. Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation, 54(sup219), 25–32. CrossRef
Okoli, C. (2015). A guide to conducting a standalone systematic literature review. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 31(37).
Palmatier, R. W., Houston, M. B., & Hulland, J. (2018). Review articles: Purpose, process, and structure. Springer.
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. CrossRef
Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of the evidence. International Small Business Journal, 25(5), 479–510. CrossRef
Pittaway, L., Holt, R., & Broad, J. (Eds.). (2014). Synthesising knowledge in entrepreneurship research: The role of systematic literature reviews ( Handbook of research on small business and entrepreneurship). London: Edward Elgar.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Bachrach, D. G., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2005). The influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s. Strategic Management Journal, 26(5), 473–488. CrossRef
Rauch, A. (2019). Opportunities and threats on reviewing entrepreneurship theory and practice. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 1–14.
Rousseau, D. M., Manning, J., & Denyer, D. (2008). Chapter 11: Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the Field's full weight of.
Rowley, J., & Slack, F. (2004). Conducting a literature review. Management Research News, 27(6), 31–39. CrossRef
Short, J. C., Broberg, J. C., Cogliser, C. C., & Brigham, K. H. (2010). Construct validation using computer-aided text analysis (CATA) an illustration using entrepreneurial orientation. Organizational Research Methods, 13(2), 320–347. CrossRef
Stephan, U. (2018). Entrepreneurs’ mental health and well-being: A review and research agenda. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(3), 290–322. CrossRef
Sutton, A. J., Abrams, K. R., Jones, D. R., Sheldon, T. A., & Song, F. (2000). Methods for meta-analysis in medical research (Vol. 348): Wiley Chichester.
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, 207–222. CrossRef
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Marcos, J., & Burr, M. (2004). Co-producing management knowledge. Management Decision, 42(3/4), 375–386. CrossRef
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS quarterly, xiii-xxiii.
Yim, W. W., Yetisgen, M., Harris, W. P., & Kwan, S. W. (2016). Natural language processing in oncology: A review. JAMA Oncology, 2(6), 797–804. CrossRef
- The art of crafting a systematic literature review in entrepreneurship research
- Springer US
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal
Print ISSN: 1554-7191
Elektronische ISSN: 1555-1938
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta