Practical recommendations for improved conduct and reporting: an analysis of business and management systematic reviews.
Saved in:
| Title: | Practical recommendations for improved conduct and reporting: an analysis of business and management systematic reviews. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Gertler, Matthew1 (AUTHOR) matthewgertler@cunet.carleton.ca, MacDonald, Heather1 (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship. Jul-Sep2025, Vol. 30 Issue 3, p199-222. 24p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Research methodology, *Best practices, *Documentation standards, Research evaluation, Industrial management |
| Abstract: | Systematic reviews (SRs) in the Business and Management (B&M) literature differ from SRs in other disciplines, particularly compared to reviews in the medical/health field where SRs originated. In this analysis, we document some of the commonly cited methodological literature used by B&M researchers. We note some of the differences in the approaches and guidance between the B&M methodological literature and the medical/health methodological literature. Second, we examine how SR methods were reported by B&M researchers. This analysis identifies areas that can benefit from improved reporting and makes recommendations for librarian supporting B&M researchers conducting SRs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Systematic reviews (SRs) in the Business and Management (B&M) literature differ from SRs in other disciplines, particularly compared to reviews in the medical/health field where SRs originated. In this analysis, we document some of the commonly cited methodological literature used by B&M researchers. We note some of the differences in the approaches and guidance between the B&M methodological literature and the medical/health methodological literature. Second, we examine how SR methods were reported by B&M researchers. This analysis identifies areas that can benefit from improved reporting and makes recommendations for librarian supporting B&M researchers conducting SRs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 08963568 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/08963568.2025.2491932 |
