LITERATURE REVIEW TYPES IN ACADEMIC RESEARCH

Paulo Botelho Pires, José Duarte Santos

Abstract


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:

Hit counter


Keywords


literature review, research methodology, knowledge synthesis, epistemology, systematic review taxonomy

Full Text:

PDF

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




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v13i1.6468

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2026 Paulo Botelho Pires, José Duarte Santos

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2015-2026. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).