mapping literature review

How to Master at Literature Mapping: 5 Most Recommended Tools to Use

This article is also available in: Turkish , Spanish, Russian , and Portuguese

After putting in a lot of thought, time, and effort, you’ve finally selected a research topic . As the first step towards conducting a successful and impactful research is completed, what follows it is the gruesome process of literature review . Despite the brainstorming, the struggle of understanding how much literature is enough for your research paper or thesis is very much real. Unlike the old days of flipping through pages for hours in a library, literature has come easy to us due to its availability on the internet through Open Access journals and other publishing platforms. This ubiquity has made it even more difficult to cover only significant data! Nevertheless, an ultimate solution to this problem of conglomerating relevant data is literature mapping .

Table of Contents

What is Literature Mapping?

Literature mapping is one of the key strategies when searching literature for your research. Since writing a literature review requires following a systematic method to identify, evaluate, and interpret the work of other researchers, academics, and practitioners from the same research field, creating a literature map proves beneficial. Mapping ideas, arguments, and concepts in a literature is an imperative part of literature review. Additionally, it is stated as an established method for externalizing knowledge and thinking processes. A map of literature is a “graphical plan”, “diagrammatic representation”, or a “geographical metaphor” of the research topic.

Researchers are often overwhelmed by the large amount of information they encounter and have difficulty identifying and organizing information in the context of their research. It is recommended that experts in their fields develop knowledge structures that are richer not only in terms of knowledge, but also in terms of the links between this knowledge. This knowledge linking process is termed as literature mapping .

How Literature Mapping Helps Researchers?

Literature mapping helps researchers in following ways:

• It provides concrete evidence of a student’s understanding and interpretation of the research field to share with both peers and professors.
• Switching to another modality helps researchers form patterns to see what might otherwise be hidden in the research area.
• Furthermore, it helps in identifying gaps in pertinent research.
• Finally, t lets researchers identify potential original areas of study and parameters of their work.

How to Make a Literature Map?

Literature mapping is not only an organizational tool, but also a reflexive tool. Furthermore, it distinguishes between declarative knowledge shown by identifying key concepts, ideas and methods, and procedural knowledge shown through classifying these key concepts and establishing links or relationships between them. The literature review conceptualizes research structures as a “knowledge production domain” that defines a productive and ongoing constructive element. Thus, the approaches emphasize the identity of different scientific institutions from different fields, which can be mapped theoretically, methodologically, or fundamentally.

The two literature mapping approaches are:

• Mapping with key ideas or descriptors: This is developed from keywords in research topics.
• Author mapping: This is also termed as citation matching that identifies key experts in the field and may include the use of citations to interlink them.

Generally, literature maps can be subdivided by categorization processes based on theories, definitions, or chronology, and cross-reference between the two types of mapping. Furthermore, researchers use mind maps as a deductive process, general concept-specific mapping (results in a right triangle), or an inductive process mapping to specific concepts (results in an inverted triangle).

What are Different Literature Mapping Methods?

The different types of literature mapping and representations are as follows:

1. Feature Mapping:

Argument structures developed from summary registration pages.

2. Topic Tree Mapping:

Summary maps showing the development of the topic in sub-themes up to any number of levels.

3. Content Mapping:

Linear structure of organization of content through hierarchical classification.

4. Taxonomic Mapping:

Classification through standardized taxonomies.

5. Concept Mapping:

Linking concepts and processes allows procedural knowledge from declarative information. With a basic principle of cause and effect and problem solving, concept maps can show the relationship between theory and practice.

6. Rhetorical Mapping:

The use of rhetoric communication to discuss, influence, or persuade is particularly important in social policy and political science and can be considered a linking strategy. A number of rhetorical tools have been identified that can be used to present a case, including ethos, metaphor, trope, and irony.

7. Citation Mapping:

Citation mapping or matching is a research process established to specifically establish links between authors by citing their articles. Traditional manual citation indexes have been replaced by automated databases that allow visual mapping methods (e.g. ISI Web of Science). In conclusion, citation matching in a subject area can be effective in determining the frequency of authors and specific articles.

5 Most Useful Literature Mapping Tools

Technology has made the literature mapping process easier now. However, with numerous options available online, it does get difficult for researchers to select one tool that is efficient. These tools are built behind explicit metadata and citations when coupled with some new machine learning techniques. Here are the most recommended literature mapping tools to choose from:

1. Connected Papers

a. Connected Papers is a simple, yet powerful, one-stop visualization tool that uses a single starter article.

b. It is easy to use tool that quickly identifies similar papers with just one “Seed paper” (a relevant paper).

c. Furthermore, it helps to detect seminal papers as well as review papers.

d. It creates a similarity graph not a citation graph and connecting lines (based on the similarity metric).

e. Does not necessarily show direct citation relationships.

f. The identified papers can then be exported into most reference managers like Zotero, EndNote, Mendeley, etc.

2. Inciteful

a. Inciteful is a customizable tool that can be used with multiple starter articles in an iterative process.

b. Results from multiple seed papers can be imported in a batch with a BibTex file.

c. Inciteful produces the following lists of papers by default:

• Similar papers (uses Adamic/Adar index)
• “Most Important Papers in the Graph” (based on PageRank)
• Recent Papers by the Top 100 Authors
• The Most Important Recent Papers

d. It allows filtration of results by keywords.

e. Importantly, seed papers can also be directly added by title or DOI.

a. Litmaps follows an iterative process and creates visualizations for found papers.

b. It allows importing of papers using BibTex format which can be exported from most reference managers like Zotero, EndNote, Mendeley. In addition, it allows paper imports from an ORCID profile.

c. Keywords search method is used to find Litmaps indexed papers.

d. Additionally, it allows setting up email updates of “emergent literature”.

e. Its unique feature that allows overlay of different maps helps to look for overlaps of papers.

f. Lastly, its explore function allows finding related papers to add to the map.

4. Citation-based Sites

a. CoCites is a citation-based method for researching scientific literature.

b. Citation Gecko is a tool for visualizing links between articles.

c. VOSviewer is a software tool for creating and visualizing bibliometric networks. These networks are for example journals, may include researchers or individual publications, which can be generated based on citation, bibliographic matching , co-citation, or co-authorship relationships. VOSviewer also offers text mining functionality that can be used to create and visualize networks of important terms extracted from a scientific literature.

5. Citation Context Tools

a. Scite allow users to see how a publication has been cited by providing the context of the citation and a classification describing whether it provides supporting or contrasting evidence for the cited claim.

b. Semantic Scholar is a freely available, AI-powered research tool for scientific literature.

Have you ever mapped your literature? Did you use any of these tools before? Lastly, what are the strategies and methods you use for literature mapping ? Let us know how this article helped you in creating a hassle-free and comprehensive literature map.

It’s very good and detailed.

It’s very good and clearly . It teaches me how to write literature mapping.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Reporting Research

AI Assistance in Academia for Searching Credible Scholarly Sources

The journey of academia is a grand quest for knowledge, more specifically an adventure to…

• Language & Grammar

Best Plagiarism Checker Tool for Researchers — Top 4 to choose from!

While common writing issues like language enhancement, punctuation errors, grammatical errors, etc. can be dealt…

• Industry News
• Publishing News

2022 in a Nutshell — Reminiscing the year when opportunities were seized and feats were achieved!

It’s beginning to look a lot like success! Some of the greatest opportunities to research…

• Manuscripts & Grants

Writing a Research Literature Review? — Here are tips to guide you through!

Literature review is both a process and a product. It involves searching within a defined…

6 Tools to Create Flawless Presentations and Assignments

No matter how you look at it, presentations are vital to students’ success. It is…

2022 in a Nutshell — Reminiscing the year when opportunities were seized and feats…

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

What should universities' stance be on AI tools in research and academic writing?

Something went wrong when searching for seed articles. Please try again soon.

No articles were found for that search term.

Author, year The title of the article goes here

LITERATURE REVIEW SOFTWARE FOR BETTER RESEARCH

“This tool really helped me to create good bibtex references for my research papers”

Ali Mohammed-Djafari

Director of Research at LSS-CNRS, France

“Any researcher could use it! The paper recommendations are great for anyone and everyone”

Swansea University, Wales

“As a student just venturing into the world of lit reviews, this is a tool that is outstanding and helping me find deeper results for my work.”

Franklin Jeffers

South Oregon University, USA

“One of the 3 most promising tools that (1) do not solely rely on keywords, (2) does nice visualizations, (3) is easy to use”

Singapore Management University

“Incredibly useful tool to get to know more literature, and to gain insight in existing research”

KU Leuven, Belgium

“Seeing my literature list as a network enhances my thinking process!”

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium

“I can’t live without you anymore! I also recommend you to my students.”

Professor at The Chinese University of Hong Kong

“This has helped me so much in researching the literature. Currently, I am beginning to investigate new fields and this has helped me hugely”

Aran Warren

Canterbury University, NZ

“It's nice to get a quick overview of related literature. Really easy to use, and it helps getting on top of the often complicated structures of referencing”

Christoph Ludwig

Technische Universität Dresden, Germany

“Litmaps is extremely helpful with my research. It helps me organize each one of my projects and see how they relate to each other, as well as to keep up to date on publications done in my field”

Daniel Fuller

Clarkson University, USA

“Litmaps is a game changer for finding novel literature... it has been invaluable for my productivity.... I also got my PhD student to use it and they also found it invaluable, finding several gaps they missed”

Varun Venkatesh

Austin Health, Australia

University of Houston Libraries

• Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences
• Review Comparison Chart
• Decision Tools
• Systematic Review
• Meta-Analysis
• Scoping Review
• Mapping Review
• Integrative Review
• Rapid Review
• Realist Review
• Umbrella Review
• Review of Complex Interventions
• Diagnostic Test Accuracy Review
• Narrative Literature Reviews
• Standards and Guidelines

Navigate the links below to jump to a specific section of the page:

• When is a Mapping Review methodology appropriate?

Outline of Stages

Methods and guidance, examples of mapping reviews, supplementary resources.

According to Booth (2016) , "a mapping review aims at categorizing, classifying, characterizing patterns, trends or themes in evidence production or publication" (p.14). Grant & Booth (2009) add that the point in conducting a mapping review is to "map out" and thematically understand the pre-existing research on a particular topic including assessing any gaps that could be addressed by future research.

Mapping reviews are not to be confused with scoping reviews, and differ as the outcome of a mapping review can be to produce primary research or more reviews. Mapping reviews are also known as systematic maps.

Characteristics

• Although mapping reviews are sometimes called scoping reviews, the key difference is that mapping reviews focus on a question ( question based ), rather than a topic ( topic based ) like the like the scoping review.
• Mapping review searches are often quick and are intended to provide a broad overview.
• Mapping reviews can take different approaches in what types of literature is focused on in the search.

When is a Mapping Review methodology appropriate?

When to Use It: Booth (2016) states that "a mapping review is best used where a clear target for a more focused evidence product has not yet been identified" (p.14). Mapping reviews are especially useful topics where there is a lot of preexisting literature, for investigating if there are gaps in the literature, and are useful to conduct before larger knowledge syntheses such as a systematic review.

The following stages of conducting a review of complex interventions are derived from  Petticrew & Roberts (2006) , Peterson et al. (2008) , and Booth et al. (2016) .

Timeframe:  12+ months, (same amount of time as a systematic review or longer)

*Varies beyond the type of review. Depends on many factors such as but not limited to: resources available, the quantity and quality of the literature, and the expertise or experience of reviewers" ( Grant & Booth, 2009 ).

Question:  Questions are of a wider scope than a systematic review. A priori review protocol is recommended.

Is your review question a complex intervention? Learn more about  Reviews of Complex Interventions

Sources and searches:  Rapid/as time allows searching aimed to give a broad overview, still aims to be thorough and repeatable. In some cases a mapping review may be limited to a certain type of article--may be limited to just review articles, just peer reviewed journals or just grey literature/research in progress. Must include a PRISMA flow diagram.

Selection:  Based on inclusion/exclusion criteria. May require more time spent screening articles due to the larger volume of studies from covering a wider scope. Also necessary to group studies for the mapping of included studies.

Appraisal:  None, only if appropriate, includes a quality assessment of study bias/validity.

Synthesis:  (Graphical or Tabular, less narrative) Visual synthesis and classification of the available studies. A high level map visualizing the status of the field related to the research question.

The following resource provides further support on conducting a mapping study.

Methods & Guidance

Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). (2013). Guidance on Systematic Maps .

Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation Bangor University, UK. (2013).  Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in Environmental Management.

• Cooper I. D. (2016). What is a "mapping study?" .  Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA ,  104 (1), 76–78. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.104.1.013
• Environmental Evidence Journal. (2014).  Systematic Maps . 
• 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 .  Systematic reviews ,  5 , 28. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0204-x
• Apaydin, E. A., Maher, A. R., Raaen, L., Motala, A., Baxi, S., Shanman, R. M., & Hempel, S. (2018). The use of technology in the clinical care of depression: an evidence map .  The Journal of clinical psychiatry ,  79 (5), 18r12118. doi: 10.4088/JCP.18r12118
• Lorenc, T., Khouja, C., Raine, G., Shemilt, I., Sutcliffe, K., D'Souza, P., Burchett, H., Hinds, K., Macdowall, W., Melton, H., Richardson, M., South, E., Stansfield, C., Thomas, S., Kwan, I., Wright, K., Sowden, A., & Thomas. J (2020) COVID-19: living map of the evidence . EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London.
• Solloway, M. R., Taylor, S. L., Shekelle, P. G., Miake-Lye, I. M., Beroes, J. M., Shanman, R. M., & Hempel, S. (2016). An evidence map of the effect of Tai Chi on health outcomes .  Systematic reviews ,  5 (1), 126. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0300-y
• Tybor, D. J., Beauchesne, A. R., Niu, R., Shams-White, M. M., & Chung, M. (2018). An evidence map of research linking dietary sugars to potentially related health outcomes .  Current developments in nutrition ,  2 (11), nzy059. doi: 10.1093/cdn/nzy059

This is an example of a mapping review of  complex interventions :

• Lorenc, T., Clayton, S., Neary, D., Whitehead, M., Petticrew, M., Thomson, H., Cummins, S., Sowden, A., & Renton, A. (2012). Crime, fear of crime, environment, and mental health and wellbeing: mapping review of theories and causal pathways .  Health & place ,  18 (4), 757–765. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2012.04.001
• Booth, A. (2016). EVIDENT guidance for reviewing the evidence: a compendium of methodological literature and websites . doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1562.9842
• Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016). Systematic approaches to systematic reviews (2nd ed.) . Sage.
• Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies .  Health information and libraries journal ,  26 (2), 91–108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
• Petersen, K., Feldt, R., Mujtaba, S., & Mattsson, M. (2008). Systematic Mapping Studies in Software Engineering . Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE).
• Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006).  Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide . Blackwell Publishing. doi: 10.1002/9780470754887
• << Previous: Scoping Review
• Next: Integrative Review >>

Other Names for a Mapping Review

• Mapping Evidence Review
• Mapping Study
• Mapping Exercise
• Systematic Map

Limitations of a Mapping Review

The following challenges of conducting mapping reviews are derived from Grant & Booth (2009) and Cooper (2016) .

• Time-constrained
• Do not involve synthesis and analysis as with other knowledge syntheses
• Broad nature of the search may leave some articles out
• Tend to describe studies on a broader level which can "oversimplify the picture or mask considerable variation (heterogeneity) between studies and their findings" ( Grant & Booth, 2009, p.98 ).
• Often exclude quality assessment and "[characterize] studies only on the basis of study design" ( Grant & Booth, 2009, p.98 ).
• May require additional expertise or training for creating the visual output
• Inconsistency in the conduct of mapping reviews

Medical Librarian

• Last Updated: Sep 5, 2023 11:14 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uh.edu/reviews

Gerstein Science Information Centre

Knowledge syntheses: systematic & scoping reviews, and other review types.

• Before you start
• Getting Started
• Different Types of Knowledge Syntheses
• Assemble a Team
• Develop your Protocol
• Eligibility Criteria
• Screening for articles
• Data Extraction
• Critical appraisal
• What are Systematic Reviews?
• What is a Meta-Analysis?
• What are Scoping Reviews?
• What are Rapid Reviews?
• What are Realist Reviews?

When is a Mapping Review methodology appropriate?

Elements of a mapping review, methods and guidance.

• What are Integrative Reviews?
• What are Umbrella Reviews?
• Standards and Guidelines
• Supplementary Resources for All Review Types
• Resources for Qualitative Synthesis
• Resources for Quantitative Synthesis
• Resources for Mixed Methods Synthesis
• Bibliography
• More Questions?
• Common Mistakes in Systematic Reviews, scoping reviews, and other review types

According to Booth (2016) , "a mapping review aims at categorizing, classifying, characterizing patterns, trends or themes in evidence production or publication" (p. 14). Grant & Booth (2009) add that the point in conducting a mapping review is to "map out" and thematically understand the pre-existing research on a particular topic including assessing any gaps that could be addressed by future research. 

Mapping reviews are not to be confused with scoping reviews and differ as the outcome of a mapping review can be to produce primary research or more reviews. Mapping reviews are also known as systematic maps.

When to Use It:  Booth (2016) states that "a mapping review is best used where a clear target for a more focused evidence product has not yet been identified" (p. 14). Mapping reviews are especially useful for topics where there is a lot of preexisting literature, for investing if there are gaps in the literature, and are useful to conduct before larger knowledge syntheses such as a systematic review.

The following characteristics, strengths, and challenges of conducting mapping reviews are derived from Grant & Booth (2009) and Cooper (2016) . 

Characteristics:

Although mapping reviews are sometimes called scoping reviews, the key difference is that mapping reviews focus on a review question, rather than a topic

Mapping review searches are often quick and are intended to provide a broad overview

Mapping reviews can take different approaches in what types of literature is focused on in the search, allows you to map out the literature on a topic which lets you see gaps in the literature.

An useful tool for policymakers, practitioners and researchers by providing "an explicit and transparent means of identifying narrower policy and practice-relevant review questions" (Grant and Booth, 2009, p. 97).

Challenges:

Time-constrained, do not involve synthesis and analysis as with other knowledge syntheses, broad nature of the search process can leave some articles out.

Tend to describe studies on a broader level which can "oversimplify the picture or mask considerable variation (heterogeneity) between studies and their findings" (Grant and Booth, 2009, p. 98)

Often exclude quality assessment and "[characterize] studies only on the basis of study design" (Grant and Booth, 2009, p. 98)

The follo w ing resource provides further support on conducting a mapping study:

METHODS & CONDUCT

Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation Bangor University, UK. (2013).  Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in Environmental Management.

Cooper I. D. (2016). What is a "mapping study?"   Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA ,  104 (1), 76–78. 

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 .   Systematic Reviews 5 (28).

SUPPLEMENTARY RESOURCES

Check out the  supplementary resources page  for additional information, including articles, on mapping reviews.

• << Previous: What are Realist Reviews?
• Next: What are Integrative Reviews? >>
• Last Updated: Apr 4, 2024 1:23 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.utoronto.ca/systematicreviews

Library links

• Gerstein Home
• U of T Libraries Home
• Renew items and pay fines
• Library hours
• Contact Gerstein
• University of Toronto Libraries
• UT Mississauga Library
• UT Scarborough Library
• Information Commons
• All libraries

© University of Toronto . All rights reserved.

Connect with us

• more social media

USF Libraries Hours by campus

Libraries locations.

• Libraries Hours
• Outages & Maintenance Alerts

RESEARCH TOOLS

• Subject & Course Guides
• USF Libraries Catalog
• Quicksearch All-in-one-search
• Citing Sources
• Find my Librarian

GUIDES / HOW-TO

• Tutorials & Workshops
• Finding Books and Articles
• Finding Reserves
• Checking Out & Renewing
• Reserve a Study Room
• Additional Help Topics
• star Other Services
• For Faculty
• For Graduate Students
• For Undergrads
• Requesting Books & Articles (ILL)
• Textbook Affordability (TAP)
• Library Instruction
• Laptop Checkout
• Schedule Research Help
• Geographic Information Systems
• Data Management Planning
• Copyright & Intellectual Property
• Scholarly Publishing
• Other Services

COLLECTIONS

• What are Collections?
• Special Collections
• Digital Collections
• Digital Heritage & Humanities
• Digital Commons @ USF
• Oral Histories
• Online Exhibitions
• Printing in the Library
• IT Help Desk
• Digital Media Commons (DMC)
• Writing Studio
• Office of Development
• Office for Undergraduate Research
• Directions to the Library
• Library Info & Floor Maps
• Connect From Off Campus
• Renew Materials Online
• Check UBorrow Status
• Printing Help
• Report a Problem
• About the USF Libraries

Systematic Reviews for Social Sciences

• Systematic Reviews

Mapping Review

• Mixed Methods Review
• Rapid Review
• Scoping Review
• Develop the Question
• Define Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
• Develop A Review Protocol
• Create Search Strategies
• Select Studies
• Extract Data
• Assess the Quality of Studies
• Synthesize Data and Write the Report
• Review Tools
• Librarian Involvement
• Grey Literature

Mapping reviews are focused on a visual synthesis of the data and are question based rather than topic based like the scoping review.

Mapping Reviews may be best designed for:

• When there is an abundance and a diversity of research.
• As a first step to a systematic review.
• To identify gaps in a topic area.

Limitations:

• The broad nature and rapid search may mean that some articles will be missed.
• May take time and require additional expertise or training for creating the visual output.
• Inconsistency in the conduct of mapping reviews.

Outline of Stages

Timeframe: 12+ months, about same amount of time as a systematic review or longer.  

Question: Questions are of a wider scope than a systematic review. A priori review protocol is recommended.

Sources and searches: Rapid as time allows searching aimed to give a broad overview, still aims to be thorough and repeatable.  In some cases a mapping review may be limited to a certain type of article--may be limited to just review articles, just peer reviewed journals or just grey literature/research in progress.  Must include a PRISMA flow diagram.

Selection: Based on inclusion/exclusion criteria.  May require more time spent screening articles due to the larger volume of studies from covering a wider scope.  Also necessary to group studies for the mapping of included studies.

Appraisal: None, only if appropriate, includes a quality assessment of study bias/validity.

Synthesis: (Graphical or Tabular, less narrative) Visual synthesis and classification of the available studies. A high level map visualizing the status of the field related to the research question.

(Sources: Petticrew and Roberts (2006), Peterson et al. (2008), Booth et al. (2016).

• Systematic reviews in the social sciences : a practical guide
• Systematic Mapping Studies in Software Engineering
• What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products
• COVID-19: A Living Evidence Map
• An Evidence Map of Research Linking Dietary Sugars to Potentially Related Health Outcomes
• The Use of Technology in the Clinical Care of Depression: An Evidence Map
• An evidence map of the effect of Tai Chi on health outcomes
• << Previous: Other Review Types
• Next: Mixed Methods Review >>
• Last Updated: Aug 31, 2023 4:34 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.usf.edu/systematicreviews

Literature Mapping in Scientific Research: A Comprehensive Review

Accelerate scientific research with Literature Mapping: a comprehensive tool for knowledge discovery and data-driven insights.

Literature mapping is a process that involves analyzing and visualizing the scientific literature on a particular topic to identify research gaps, improve collaboration, and inform decision-making.

In this article, we list five benefits of literature mapping for scientists and researchers and show you types and tools to save your time and help you find better evidence.

What is Literature Mapping?

Literature mapping is a process that involves analyzing and visualizing the scientific literature on a particular topic. It includes systematically searching, collecting, and reviewing relevant studies, articles, and books published in a specific field or discipline.

The purpose of literature mapping is to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge on a topic, identify gaps in the literature, and potential areas for future research. It can be useful for those who seek to conduct a systematic review, develop a research proposal, or explore new research areas.

Benefits of Literature Mapping

Here are five benefits of literature mapping for scientists and researchers:

• Identify research gaps : Literature mapping helps researchers to identify gaps in the existing research and to determine areas that require further investigation.
• Visualize the research landscape : By creating visualizations of the scientific literature, researchers can see the relationships between different research topics.
• Save time : Literature mapping can help researchers save time by providing an overview of the literature on a particular topic, including relevant studies and duplicated work.
• Improve collaboration : Literature mapping can help researchers to collaborate more effectively by providing a shared understanding of the research landscape. This improves communication, and facilitates the workflow between different disciplines.
• Inform decision-making : Literature mapping can help researchers to make assertive decisions. This can be especially useful for policymakers and other decision-makers who need to make decisions based on scientific evidence.

Types of Literature Mapping

Feature mapping.

Feature mapping is a technique used primarily in data analysis and machine learning to identify patterns and relationships between features of a dataset. It involves analyzing the data and plotting the relationships between different features of the dataset on a map or chart.

Some of the main features include:

• Identification of relationships : Feature mapping can help identify the relationships between different features or variables in a dataset. This can allow for better modeling and prediction of outcomes.
• Pattern recognition : By plotting the relationships between features of a dataset, feature mapping can help identify patterns and anomalies that may not be immediately apparent in the raw data.
• Visualization : Feature mapping often involves creating visual representations of the relationships between features of a dataset. This can help make the data easier to understand and interpret.
• Dimension reduction : When dealing with large datasets with many features, feature mapping can help reduce the dimensionality of the data. This can help simplify the data and make it easier to analyze.
• Data clustering : Feature mapping can also help identify groups or clusters of data points that share similar features. This can allow for more targeted analysis and modeling of specific groups within the dataset.
• Feature selection : Feature mapping can aid in the selection of the most important features from a dataset. By identifying the relationships between features, researchers can determine which features are most relevant to the outcomes they are trying to predict.

Topic Tree Mapping

Topic tree mapping is a technique used to visualize and organize the relationships between different topics or themes within a larger subject area. It involves creating a hierarchical structure of topics, with more general topics at the top and more specific subtopics branching out below.

Content Mapping

Content mapping is the process of creating a visual representation or map of the content of a document, website, or other information source. It involves breaking down the content into its constituent parts, organizing it according to a logical structure, and presenting it in a user-friendly and easily accessible way.

Taxonomic Mapping

Taxonomic mapping is the process of assigning different taxonomic categories to specific objects or organisms based on their characteristics, traits, and other distinguishing features. This mapping enables the organization and identification of different species and helps researchers and scientists to conduct various studies and experiments related to their classification, evolution, and diversity.

Concept Mapping

Concept Mapping is a visual representation of the relationships between concepts and ideas in a particular field. It involves identifying key concepts, and organizing them into a hierarchical structure. It can help to identify gaps in knowledge and aid in the development of new theories.

Rhetorical Mapping

Rhetorical mapping is a process used in communication studies and critical discourse analysis to analyze the structure and content of discourse. It involves creating a visual representation or diagram of a text or speech that identifies its various components, such as arguments, claims, evidence, and rhetorical strategies used to persuade the audience. Rhetorical mapping allows researchers to understand how the speaker or writer uses language and persuasion techniques to influence the audience’s beliefs and attitudes.

Citation Mapping

Citation Mapping involves tracing the citation history of a particular article, and identifying the articles that have cited it. This can help to identify the impact of the article on the field, and identify related research.

Tools for Literature Mapping

• Citation Gecko : Citation Gecko is a web-based tool that allows users to quickly and easily search for and download citation data from various academic databases. It streamlines and simplifies the process of finding and organizing citations for research projects.
• Inciteful : Inciteful is a literature-mapping tool that visualizes citation networks and identifies key authors and articles within a particular field of research. It can be used to explore the literature on a specific topic, as well as to identify gaps in current research.
• OpenKnowledge : OpenKnowledge is an online platform for sharing and discovering research papers and other scholarly materials. It enables users to search for and download documents, as well as to connect with other researchers who are working in the same field.
• ConnectedPapers : ConnectedPapers is a search engine that allows users to explore citation networks and discover the most influential papers and authors in a particular field. It uses citation information to uncover relationships between different papers and to suggest potentially relevant articles to read.
• LitMaps : LitMaps is a mapping tool that allows users to explore the relationships between different articles and concepts within a particular field of study. It visualizes the connections between different scholarly articles and helps users to develop a deeper understanding of the underlying themes and concepts within a particular field.
• Local Citation Network : Local Citation Network is a tool for mapping the relationships between different articles and authors within a particular geographic area. It allows users to explore the research in progress in a particular region and to identify potential collaborators and sources of funding.
• CoCites : CoCites is a literature-mapping tool that identifies the most frequently cited articles and authors within a particular field. It allows users to explore the relationships between different papers and to identify key areas of research.
• VOSviewer : VOSviewer is a tool for visualizing citation networks and identifying key authors, papers, and concepts within a particular field of research. It allows users to explore the relationships between different papers and to identify areas of overlap and potential collaboration.
• ResearchRabbit : ResearchRabbit is a web-based research tool that allows users to search for and collect scholarly articles and other research materials. It streamlines the research process by helping users to find relevant articles and to organize and annotate their findings.

Professional and custom designs for your publications

Professional and custom designs are crucial for scientific publications because they help researchers to communicate their research findings effectively and efficiently. A well-designed publication not only attracts the attention of the reader but also conveys the information in a clear and understandable way.

With Mind the Graph , researchers can easily create custom illustrations, graphs, charts, and diagrams that clearly present their research findings. The platform provides a vast library of scientific illustrations that are scientifically accurate and visually appealing.

The platform’s vast library of illustrations, user-friendly interface, and collaboration features make it an essential tool for researchers who want to communicate their research findings effectively and efficiently.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.

Content tags

• Research Guides

Literature Review: A Self-Guided Tutorial

Using concept maps.

• Literature Reviews: A Recap
• Peer Review
• Reading the Literature
• Developing Research Questions
• Considering Strong Opinions
• 2. Review discipline styles
• Super Searching
• Finding the Full Text
• Citation Searching This link opens in a new window
• When to stop searching
• Citation Management
• Annotating Articles Tip
• 5. Critically analyze and evaluate
• How to Review the Literature
• Using a Synthesis Matrix
• 7. Write literature review

Concept maps or mind maps visually represent relationships of different concepts. In research, they can help you make connections between ideas. You can use them as you are formulating your research question, as you are reading a complex text, and when you are creating a literature review. See the video and examples below.

How to Create a Concept Map

Credit: Penn State Libraries ( CC-BY ) Run Time: 3:13

• Bubbl.us Free version allows 3 mind maps, image export, and sharing.
• MindMeister Free version allows 3 mind maps, sharing, collaborating, and importing. No image-based exporting.

Mind Map of a Text Example

Credit: Austin Kleon. A map I drew of John Berger’s Ways of Seeing in 2008. Tumblr post. April 14, 2016. http://tumblr.austinkleon.com/post/142802684061#notes

Literature Review Mind Map Example

This example shows the different aspects of the author's literature review with citations to scholars who have written about those aspects.

Credit: Clancy Ratliff, Dissertation: Literature Review. Culturecat: Rhetoric and Feminism [blog]. 2 October 2005. http://culturecat.net/node/955 .

• << Previous: Reading the Literature
• Next: 1. Identify the question >>
• Last Updated: Feb 22, 2024 10:53 AM
• URL: https://libguides.williams.edu/literature-review

Literature Reviews

• What is a Literature Review?
• Concept Mapping
• Writing a Proposal
• For Faculty

Need help? Ask a librarian

Concept map example: Chocolate Purchasing Factors

What is concept mapping.

Concept Maps are a way to graphically represent ideas and how they relate to each other.

Concept maps may be simple designs illustrating a central theme and a few associated topics or complex structures that delineate hierarchical or multiple relationships.

J.D. Novak developed concept maps in the 1970's to help facilitate the research process for his students. Novak found that visually representing thoughts helped students freely associate ideas without being blocked or intimidated by recording them in a traditional written format.

Concept mapping involves defining a topic; adding related topics; and linking related ideas

Use Bubbl.us or search for more free mind-mapping tools on the web.

More Examples of Concept Maps

• Govt Factors in Consumer Choice
• Mental Health
• Social Psychology
• << Previous: Examples
• Next: Writing a Proposal >>
• Last Updated: Mar 25, 2024 8:48 AM
• URL: https://researchguides.njit.edu/literaturereview

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 16 May 2019

An analysis of current practices in undertaking literature reviews in nursing: findings from a focused mapping review and synthesis

• Helen Aveyard   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5133-3356 1 &
• Caroline Bradbury-Jones 2  

BMC Medical Research Methodology volume  19 , Article number:  105 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

38k Accesses

25 Citations

10 Altmetric

Metrics details

In this paper we discuss the emergence of many different methods for doing a literature review. Referring back to the early days, when there were essentially two types of review; a Cochrane systematic review and a narrative review, we identify how the term systematic review is now widely used to describe a variety of review types and how the number of available methods for doing a literature review has increased dramatically. This led us to undertake a review of current practice of those doing a literature review and the terms used to describe them.

We undertook a focused mapping review and synthesis. Literature reviews; defined as papers with the terms review or synthesis in the title, published in five nursing journals between January 2017–June 2018 were identified. We recorded the type of review and how these were undertaken.

We identified more than 35 terms used to describe a literature review. Some terms reflected established methods for doing a review whilst others could not be traced to established methods and/or the description of method in the paper was limited. We also found inconsistency in how the terms were used.

We have identified a proliferation of terms used to describe doing a literature review; although it is not clear how many distinct methods are being used. Our review indicates a move from an era when the term narrative review was used to describe all ‘non Cochrane’ reviews; to a time of expansion when alternative systematic approaches were developed to enhance rigour of such narrative reviews; to the current situation in which these approaches have proliferated to the extent so that the academic discipline of doing a literature review has become muddled and confusing. We argue that an ‘era of consolidation’ is needed in which those undertaking reviews are explicit about the method used and ensure that their processes can be traced back to a well described, original primary source.

Peer Review reports

Over the past twenty years in nursing, literature reviews have become an increasingly popular form of synthesising evidence and information relevant to the profession. Along with this there has been a proliferation of publications regarding the processes and practicalities of reviewing [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ], This increase in activity and enthusiasm for undertaking literature reviews is paralleled by the foundation of the Cochrane Collaboration in 1993. Developed in response to the need for up-to-date reviews of evidence of the effectiveness of health care interventions, the Cochrane Collaboration introduced a rigorous method of searching, appraisal and analysis in the form of a ‘handbook’ for doing a systematic review [ 5 ] .Subsequently, similar procedural guidance has been produced, for example by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) [ 6 ] and The Joanna Briggs Institute [ 7 ]. Further guidance has been published to assist researchers with clarity in the reporting of published reviews [ 8 ].

In the early days of the literature review era, the methodological toolkit for those undertaking a literature was polarised, in a way that mirrored the paradigm wars of the time within mixed-methods research [ 9 ]. We refer to this as the ‘dichotomy era’ (i.e. the 1990s), The prominent methods of literature reviewing fell into one of two camps: The highly rigorous and systematic, mostly quantitative ‘Cochrane style’ review on one hand and a ‘narrative style’ review on the other hand, whereby a body of literature was summarised qualitatively, but the methods were often not articulated. Narrative reviews were particularly popular in dissertations and other student work (and they continue to be so in many cases) but have been criticised for a lack of systematic approach and consequently significant potential for bias in the findings [ 10 , 11 ].

The latter 1990s and early 2000, saw the emergence of other forms of review, developed as a response to the Cochrane/Narrative dichotomy. These alternative approaches to the Cochrane review provided researchers with reference points for performing reviews that drew on different study types, not just randomised controlled trials. They promoted a systematic and robust approach for all reviews, not just those concerned with effectiveness of interventions and treatments. One of the first published description of methods was Noblet and Hare’s (1998) ‘Meta-ethnography’ [ 12 ]. This method, although its name suggests otherwise, could incorporate and synthesise all types of qualitative research, not just ethnographies. The potential confusion regarding the inclusion of studies that were not ethnographies within a meta-ethnography, promoted the description of other similar methods, for example, the meta-synthesis of Walsh and Downe (2005) [ 13 ] and the thematic synthesis of Thomas and Harden (2008) [ 14 ]. Also, to overcome the dichotomy of the quantitative/qualitative reviews, the integrative review was described according to Whitemore and Knafl (2005) [ 15 ]. These reviews can be considered to be literature reviews that have been done in a systematic way but not necessarily adhering to guidelines established by the Cochrane Collaboration. We conceptualise this as the ‘expansion era’. Some of the methods are summarised in Table  1 .

Over the past two decades there has been a proliferation of review types, with corresponding explosion of terms used to describe them. A review of evidence synthesis methodologies by Grant and Booth in 2009 [ 20 ] identified 14 different approaches to reviewing the literature and similarly, Booth and colleagues [ 21 ] detailed 19 different review types, highlighting the range of review types currently available. We might consider this the ‘proliferation era’. This is however, somewhat a double-edged sword, because although researchers now have far more review methods at their disposal, there is risk of confusion in the field. As Sabatino and colleagues (2014) [ 22 ] have argued, review methods are not always consistently applied by researchers.

Aware of such potential inconsistency and also our own confusion at times regarding the range of review methods available, we questioned what was happening within our own discipline of nursing. We undertook a snap-shot, contemporary analysis to explore the range of terms used to describe reviews, the methods currently described in nursing and the underlying trends and patterns in searching, appraisal and analysis adopted by those doing a literature review. The aim was to gain some clarity on what is happening within the field, in order to understand, explain and critique what is happening within the proliferation era.

In order to explore current practices in doing a literature review, we undertook a ‘Focused Mapping Review and Synthesis’ (FMRS) – an approach that has been described only recently. This form of review [ 19 ] is a method of investigating trends in academic publications and has been used in a range of issues relevant to nursing and healthcare, for example, theory in qualitative research [ 23 ] and vicarious trauma in child protection research [ 24 ].

A FMRS seeks to identify what is happening within a particular subject or field of inquiry; hence the search is restricted to a particular time period and to pre-identified journals. The review has four distinct features: It: 1) focuses on identifying trends in an area rather than a body of evidence; 2) creates a descriptive map or topography of key features of research within the field rather than a synthesis of findings; 3) comments on the overall approach to knowledge production rather than the state of the evidence; 4) examines this within a broader epistemological context. These are translated into three specific focused activities: 1) targeted journals; 2) a specific subject; 3) a defined time period. The FMRS therefore, is distinct from other forms of review because it responds to questions concerned with ‘what is happening in this field?’ It was thus an ideal method to investigate current practices in literature reviews in nursing.

Using the international Scopus (2016) SCImago Journal and Country Rank, we identified the five highest ranked journals in nursing at that time of undertaking the review. There was no defined method for determining the number of journals to include in a review; the aim was to identify a sample and we identified five journals in order to search from a range of high ranking journals. We discuss the limitations of this later. Journals had to have ‘nursing’ or ‘nurse’ in the title and we did not include journals with a specialist focus, such as nutrition, cancer etcetera. The included journals are shown in Table  2 and are in order according to their ranking. We recognise that our journal choice meant that only articles published in English made it into the review.

A key decision in a FMRS is the time-period within which to retrieve relevant articles. Like many other forms of review, we undertook an initial scoping to determine the feasibility and parameters of the project [ 19 ]. In our previous reviews, the timeframe has varied from three months [ 23 ] to 6 years [ 24 ]. The main criterion is the likelihood for the timespan to contain sufficient articles to answer the review questions. We set the time parameter from January 2017–June 2018. We each took responsibility for two and three journals each from which to retrieve articles. We reviewed the content page of each issue of each journal. For our purposes, in order to reflect the diverse range of terms for describing a literature review, as described earlier in this paper, any paper that contained the term ‘review’ or ‘synthesis’ in the title was included in the review. This was done by each author individually but to enhance rigour, we worked in pairs to check each other’s retrieval processes to confirm inter-rater consistency. This process allowed any areas of uncertainty to be discussed and agreed and we found this form of calibration crucial to the process. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are shown in Table  3 .

Articles meeting the inclusion criteria, papers were read in full and data was extracted and recorded as per the proforma developed for the study (Table 4 ). The proforma was piloted on two papers to check for usability prior to data extraction. Data extraction was done independently but we discussed a selection of papers to enhance rigour of the process. No computer software was used in the analysis of the data. We did not critically appraise the included studies for quality because our purpose was to profile what is happening in the field rather than to draw conclusions from the included studies’ findings.

Once the details from all the papers had been extracted onto the tables, we undertook an analysis to identify common themes in the included articles. Because our aim was to produce a snap-shot profile, our analysis was thematic and conceptual. Although we undertook some tabulation and numerical analysis, our primary focus was on capturing patterns and trends characterised by the proliferation era. In line with the FMRS method, in the findings section we have used illustrative examples from the included articles that reflect and demonstrate the point or claim being made. These serve as useful sources of information and reference for readers seeking concrete examples.

Between January 2017 and June 2018 in the five journals we surveyed, a total of 222 papers with either ‘review’ or ‘synthesis’ in the title were retrieved and included in our analysis. We identified three primary themes: 1) Proliferation in names for doing a review; 2) Allegiance to an established review method; 3) Clarity about review processes. The results section is organised around these themes.

Proliferation in names for doing a review

We identified more than 35 terms used by authors to describe a literature review. Because we amalgamated terms such as ‘qualitative literature review’ and ‘qualitative review’ the exact number is actually slightly higher. It was clear from reading the reviews that many different terms were used to describe the same processes. For example qualitative systematic review, qualitative review and meta-synthesis, qualitative meta-synthesis, meta-ethnography all refer to a systematic review of qualitative studies. We have therefore grouped together the review types that refer to a particular type of review as described by the authors of the publications used in this study (Table  5 ).

In many reviews, the specific type of review was indicated in the title as seen for example in Table  5 . A striking feature was that all but two of the systematic reviews that contained a meta-analysis were labelled as such in the title; providing clarity and ease of retrieval. Where a literature review did not contain a meta-analysis, the title of the paper was typically referred to a ‘systematic review’; the implication being that a systematic review is not necessarily synonymous with a meta-analysis. However as discussed in the following section, this introduced some muddying of water, with different interpretations of what systematic review means and how broadly this term is applied. Some authors used the methodological type of included papers to describe their review. For example, a Cochrane-style systematic review was undertaken [ 25 ] but the reviewers did not undertake a meta-analysis and thus referred to their review as a ‘quantitative systematic review’.

Allegiance to an established literature review method

Many literature reviews demonstrated allegiance to a defined method and this was clearly and consistently described by the authors. For example, one team of reviewers [ 26 ] articulately described the process of a ‘meta-ethnography’ and gave a detailed description of their study and reference to the origins of the method by Noblet and Hare (1988) [ 12 ]. Another popular method was the ‘integrative review’ where most authors referred to the work of one or two seminal papers where the method was originally described (for example, Whitemore & Knafl 2005 [ 15 ]).

For many authors the term systematic review was used to mean a review of quantitative research, but some authors [ 27 , 28 , 29 ],used the term systematic review to describe reviews containing both qualitative and quantitative data.

However in many reviews, commitment to a method for doing a literature review appeared superficial, undeveloped and at times muddled. For example, three reviews [ 30 , 31 , 32 ] , indicate an integrative review in the title of their review, but this is the only reference to the method; there is no further reference to how the components of an integrative review are addressed within the paper. Other authors do not state allegiance to any particular method except to state a ‘literature review’ [ 33 ] but without an outline of a particular method for doing so. Anther review [ 34 ] reports a ‘narrative review’ but does not give further information about how this was done, possibly indicative of the lack of methods associated with the traditional narrative review. Three other reviewers documented how they searched, appraised and analysed their literature but do not reference an over-riding approach for their review [ 35 , 36 , 37 ]. In these examples, the review can be assumed to be a literature review, but the exact approach is not clear.

In other reviews, the methods for doing a literature review appear to be used interchangeably. For example in one review [ 38 ] the term narrative review was used in the title but in the main text an integrative review was described. In another review [ 39 ] two different and distinct methods were combined in a ‘meta-ethnographic meta-synthesis’.

Some authors [ 40 , 41 ] referred to a method used to undertake their review, for example a systematic review, but did not reference the primary source from where the method originated. Instead a secondary source, such as a textbook is used to reference the approach taken [ 20 , 42 ].

Clarity about review processes

Under this theme we discerned two principal issues: searching and appraisal. The majority of literature reviews contain three components- searching, appraisal and analysis, details of which are usually reported in the methods section of the papers. However, this is not always the case and for example, one review [ 43 ] provides only a search strategy with no information about the overall method or how critical appraisal or analysis were undertaken. Despite the importance of the process of analysis, we found little discussion of this in the papers reviewed.

The overwhelming trend for those doing a literature review was to describe a comprehensive search; although for many in our sample, a comprehensive search appeared to be limited to a database search; authors did not describe additional search strategies that would enable them to find studies that might be missed through electronic searching. Furthermore, authors did not define what a comprehensive search entailed, for example whether this included grey literature. We identified a very small number of studies where authors had undertaken a purposive sample [ 26 , 44 ]; in these reviews authors clearly stated that their search was for ‘seminal papers’ rather than all papers.

We reviewed the approaches to critical appraisal described in the papers and there were varying interpretations of what this means and which aspect of the included articles were to be subject to appraisal. Some authors [ 36 , 45 , 46 ] used the term ‘critical appraisal’ to refer to relevance of the paper to the review, rather than quality criteria. In that sense critical appraisal was used more as an inclusion criterion regarding relevance, rather than quality in the methods used. Mostly though, the term was used to describe the process of critical analysis of the methodological quality of included papers included in a review. When the term was used in this way to refer to quality criteria, appraisal tools were often used; for example, one review [ 47 ] provides a helpful example when they explain how a particular critical appraisal tool was used to asses the quality of papers in their review. Formal critical appraisal was undertaken by the vast majority reviewers, however the role of critical appraisal in the paper was often not explained [ 33 , 48 ]. It was common for a lot of detail to be provided about the approach to appraisal, including how papers were assessed and how disagreements between reviewers about the quality of individual papers were resolved, with no further mention of the subsequent role of the appraisal in the review. The reason for doing the critical appraisal in the review was often unclear and furthermore, in many cases, researchers included all papers within their review regardless of quality. For example, one team of reviewers [ 49 ] explained how the process, in their view, is not to exclude studies but to highlight the quality of evidence available. Another team of reviewers described how they did not exclude studies on the basis of quality because of the limited amount of research available on the topic [ 50 ].

Our review has identified a multiplicity of similar terms and approaches used by authors when doing a literature review, that we suggests marks the ‘proliferation era’. The expansion of terms used to describe a literature review has been observed previously [ 19 , 21 ]. We have identified an even wider range of terms, indicating that this trend may be increasing. This is likely to give the impression of an incoherent and potentially confusing approach to the scholarly undertaking of doing a literature review and is likely to be particularly problematic for novice researchers and students when attempting to grapple with the array of approaches available to them. The range of terms used in the title of papers to describe a literature review may cause both those new to research to wonder what the difference is between a qualitative evidence synthesis and a qualitative systematic review and which method is most suitable for their enquiry.

The clearest articles in our review were those that reported a systematic review with or without a meta-analysis. For example, one team of reviewers [ 25 ] undertook a Cochrane-style systematic review but did not undertake a meta-analysis and thus referred to their review as a ‘quantitative systematic review’. We found this form of labelling clear and helpful and is indeed in line with current recommendations [ 8 ]. While guidelines exist for the publication of systematic reviews [ 8 , 51 ], given the range of terms that are used by authors, some may be unclear when these guidelines should apply and this adds some confusion to the field. Of course, authors are at liberty to call their review processes whatever they deem appropriate, but our analysis has unearthed some inconsistencies that are confusing to the field of literature reviewing.

There is current debate about the status of literature reviews that are not ‘Cochrane’ style reviews [ 52 ]. Classification can be complex and whilst it might be tempting to refer to all non Cochrane-style reviews as ‘narrative reviews’ [ 52 ], literature reviews that conform to a recognised method would generally not be considered as such [ 53 ] and indeed the Cochrane Collaboration handbook refers to the principles of systematic review as applicable to different types of evidence, not just randomised controlled trials [ 5 ] .This raises the question as to whether the term systematic review should be an umbrella term referring to any review with an explicit method; which is implicit in the definition of a systematic review, but which raises the question as to how rigorous a method has to be to meet these standards, a thorny issue which we have identified in this study.

This review has identified a lack of detail in the reporting of the methods used by those doing a review. In 2017, Thorne raised the rhetorical question: ‘What kind of monster have we created?‘ [ 54 ]. Critiquing the growing investment in qualitative metasyntheses, she observed that many reviews were being undertaken that position themselves as qualitative metasyntheses, yet are theoretically and methodologically superficial. Thorne called for greater clarity and sense of purpose as the ‘trend in synthesis research marches forward’ [ 54 ]. Our review covered many review types, not just the qualitative meta-synthesis and its derivatives. However, we concur with Thorne’s conclusion that research methods are not extensively covered or debated in many of the published papers which might explain the confusion of terms and mixing of methods.

Despite the proliferation in terms for doing a literature review, and corresponding associated different methods and a lack of consistency in their application, our review has identified how the methods used (or indeed the reporting of the methods) appear to be remarkably similar in most publications. This may be due to limitations in the word count available to authors. However for example, the vast majority of papers describe a comprehensive search, critical appraisal and analysis. The approach to searching is of particular note; whilst comprehensive searching is the cornerstone of the Cochrane approach, other aproaches advocate that a sample of literature is sufficient [ 15 , 20 ]. Yet in our review we found only two examples where reviewers had used this approach, despite many other reviews claiming to be undertaking a meta-ethnography or meta-synthesis. This indicates that many of those doing a literature review have defaulted to the ‘comprehensive search’ irrespective of the approach to searching suggested in any particular method which is again indicative of confusion in the field.

Differences are reported in the approach to searching and critical appraisal and these appear not to be linked to different methods, but seem to be undertaken on the judgement and discretion of the reviewers without rationale or justification within the published paper. It is not for us to question researchers’ decisions as regards managing the flow of articles through their reviews, but when it comes to the issue of both searching and lack of clarity about the role of critical appraisal there is evidence of inconsistency by those doing a literature review. This reflects current observations in the literature where the lack of clarity about the role of critical appraisal within a literature review is debated . [ 55 , 56 ].

Our review indicates that many researchers follow a very similar process, regardless of their chosen method and the real differences that do exist between published methods are not apparent in many of the published reviews. This concurs with previously mentioned concerns [ 54 ] about the superficial manner in which methods are explored within literature reviews. The overriding tendency is to undertake a comprehensive review, critical appraisal and analysis, following the formula prescribed by Cochrane, even if this is not required by the literature review method stated in the paper. Other researchers [ 52 ] have questioned whether the dominance of the Cochrane review should be questioned. We argue that emergence of different methods for doing a literature review in a systematic way has indeed challenged the perceived dominance of the Cochrane approach that characterised the dichotomy era, where the only alternative was a less rigourous and often poorly described process of dealing with literature. It is positive that there is widespread acknowledgement of the validity of other approaches. But we argue that the expansion era, whereby robust processes were put forward as alternatives that filled the gap left by polarisation, has gone too far. The magnitude in the number of different approaches identified in this review has led to a confused field. Thorne [ 54 ] refers to a ‘meta-madness’; with the proliferation of methods leading to the oversimplification of complex literature and ideas. We would extend this to describe a ‘meta-muddle’ in which, not only are the methods and results oversimplified, but the existence of so many terms used to describe a literature review, many of them used interchangeably, has added a confusion to the field and prevented the in-depth exploration and development of specific methods. Table  6 shows the issues associated with the proliferation era and importantly, it also highlights the recommendations that might lead to a more coherent reviewing community in nursing.

The terms used for doing a literature review are often used both interchangeably and inconsistently, with minimal description of the methods undertaken. It is not surprising therefore that some journal editors do not index these consistently within the journal. For example, in one edition of one journal included in the review, there are two published integrative reviews. One is indexed in the section entitled as a ‘systematic review’, while the other is indexed in a separate section entitled ‘literature review’. In another edition of a journal, two systematic reviews with meta-analysis are published. One is listed as a research article and the other as a review and discussion paper. It seems to us then, that editors and publishers might sometimes also be confused and bewildered themselves.

Whilst guidance does exist for the publication of some types of systematic reviews in academic journals; for example the PRISMA statement [ 8 ] and Entreq guidelines [ 51 ], which are specific to particular qualitative synthesis, guidelines do not exist for each approach. As a result, for those doing an alternative approach to their literature review, for example an integrative review [ 15 ], there is only general publication guidance to assist. In the current reviewing environment, there are so many terms, that more specific guidance would be impractical anyway. However, greater clarity about the methods used and halting the introduction of different terms to mean the same thing will be helpful.

Limitations

This study provides a snapshot of the way in which literature reviews have been described within a short publication timeframe. We were limited for practical reasons to a small section of high impact journals. Including a wider range of journals would have enhanced the transferability of the findings. Our discussion is, of course, limited to the review types that were published in the timeframe, in the identified journals and which had the term ‘review’ or ‘synthesis’ in the title. This would have excluded papers that were entitled ‘meta-analysis’. However as we were interested in the range of reviews that fall outside the scope of a meta-analysis, we did not consider that this limited the scope of the paper. Our review is further limited by the lack of detail of the methods undertaken provided in many of the papers reviewed which, although providing evidence for our arguments, also meant that we had to assume meaning that was unclear from the text provided.

The development of rigorous methods for doing a literature review is to be welcomed; not all review questions can be answered by Cochrane style reviews and robust methods are needed to answer review questions of all types. Therefore whilst we welcome the expansion in methods for doing a literature review, the proliferation in the number of named approaches should be, in our view, a cause for reflection. The increase in methods could be indicative of an emerging variation in possible approaches; alternatively, the increase could be due to a lack of conceptual clarity where, on closer inspection, the methods do not differ greatly and could indeed be merged. Further scrutiny of the methods described within many papers support the latter situation but we would welcome further discussion about this. Meanwhile, we urge researchers to make careful consideration of the method they adopt for doing a literature review, to justify this approach carefully and to adhere closely to its method. Having witnessed an era of dichotomy, expansion and proliferation of methods for doing a literature review, we now seek a new era of consolidation.

Bettany-Saltikov J. How to do a systematic literature review in nursing: a step-by-step guide. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2012.

Google Scholar  

Coughlan M, Cronin P, Ryan F. Doing a literature review in nursing, Health and social care. London: Sage; 2013.

Aveyard H. Doing a literature review in health and social care. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2018.

Davis D. A practical overview of how to conduct a systematic review. Nurs Stand. 2016;31(12):60–70.

Article   Google Scholar  

Higgins and Green. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0: Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York: University of York; 2008.

Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2017. Available from https://reviewersmanual.joannabriggs.org/

Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart L. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols. Br Med J. 2015;2:349 (Jan 02).

Creswell JW, Plano-Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2011.

Greenhalgh T. How to read a paper. 4th ed: Wiley; 2010.

Booth A, Papaioannou D, Sutton A. Systematic appproaches to a successful literature review Sage London; 2012.

Noblit GW, Hare RD. Meta-ethnography, synthesising qualitative studies, qualitative research methods, volume 11. London: SAGE Publications; 1988.

Walsh D, Downe S. Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review. J Adv Nurs. 2005;50(2):204–11.

Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:45.

Whittemore R, Knafl K. The integrative review: updated methodology. J Adv Nurs. 2005;52:546–53.

Scoping Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, McInerney P, Soares CB, Khalil H, Parker D. Methodology for Joanna Briggs institute scoping review. Joanna Briggs institute reviewers manual: Australia; 2015.

Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R. RAMESES publication standards: realist synthesis BMC medicine, vol. 11; 2013. p. 21.

Plüddemann A, Aronson JK, Onakpoya I, Heneghan C, Mahtani KR. Redefining rapid reviews: a flexible framework for restricted systematic reviews. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine Epub ahead of print: 27 June 2018. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjemb-2018-110990 .

Bradbury-Jones C, Breckenridge J, Clark MT, Herber OR, Jones C, Taylor J. Advancing the science of literature reviewing: the focused mapping review and synthesis as a novel approach. Int J Soc Res Methodol. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2019.1576328 .

Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of review- an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26(2):91–108.

Booth, A., Noyes, J., Flemming, K., Gerhardus, A., Wahlster, P., van der Wilt G.J., Mozygemba K, Refolo P, Sacchini D, Tummers, M, Rehfuess, E. (2016) Guidance on choosing qualitative evidence synthesis methods for use in health technology assessments of complex interventions. Available: http://www.integrate-hta.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Guidance-on-choosing-qualitative-evidence-synthesis-methods-for-use-in-HTA-of-complex-interventions.pdf

Sabatino L, Stievano A, Rocco G, Kallio H, Pietila A, KAngasniemi M. The dignity of the nursing profession: a meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Nurs Ethics. 2014;2(6):659–72.

Bradbury-Jones C, Taylor J, Herber O. How theory is used and articulated in qualitative research: development of a new typology. Soc Sci Med. 2014;120:135–41.

Taylor J, Bradbury-Jones C, Breckenridge J, Jones C, Herber OR. Risk of vicarious trauma in nursing research: a focused mapping review and synthesis. J Clin Nurs. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13235 .

Haggman Laitila A, Rompannen J. Outcomes of interventions for nurse leaders’ well being at work. A quantitative systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2018;74:34–44.

Strandos M, Bondas T. The nurse patient relationship as a story of health enhancement in community care- a meta-ethnography. J Adv Nurs. 2018;74:11–8.

Gilissen J, Pivodic L, Smets T, Gastmans C, Stichels RV, Delieus L, Van den Black L. Preconditions for successful advanced care planning in nursing homes: a systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2017;66:47–59.

Walczak A, Mcdonald F, Patterson P, Dobinson K, Kimberley A. How does parental cancer affect adolescent and young adult offspring. A systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018;77:54–80.

Leyva-Moral JM, Palmoero PA, Feijoo-Cid M, Edwards JE. Reproductive decision making in women living with HIV: systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018;77:207–21.

Pires S, Monteiro S, Pereira A, Chaló D, Melo E, Rodriguese A. Non technical skills assessment for pre-licensure nursing students: an integrative literature review nurse education today, vol. 58; 2017. p. 19–24.

Wilkinson A, Meilkle N, Law P, Yong A, Butler P, Kim J, Mulligan H, Hale L. How older adults and their informal carers prevent falls: an integrative review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018;82:13–8.

Drewniak D, Krones T, Wild V. Do attitudes and behaviours of health care professionals exacerbate health care disparities among immigrant and ethnic minority groups? An integrative literature review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2017;70:89–98.

Garone A, Craen Van de P. The role of language skills abd internationalisation in nursing degree programmes: a literature review. Nurse Educ Today. 2017;49:140–4.

Casey M, O’Connor L, Cashin A (et al) An overview of the outcomes and impact of specialist and advanced nursing and midwifery practice on quality of care, cost and access to services: A narrative review. Nurse Educ Today 2017;56:35-40.

Adib-Hajbaghery M, Sharifi N. Effect of simulation training on the development of nurses and nursing students critical thinking: a systematic review. Nurse Educ Today. 2017;50:17–24.

Irwin C, Bliss J, Poole J. Does preceptorship improve confidence and competence in newly qualified nurses: a systematic literature review. Nurse educ Today. 2018;60:35–46.

Jefferies D, McNallya S, Roberts K, Wallace A, Stunden A, D'Souzaa S, Glew P. The importance of academic literacy for undergraduate nursing students and its relationship to future professional clinical practice: a systematic review. Nurse educ Today. 2018;60:84–91.

Lewis ML, Neville C, Ashkanasy NM. Emotional intelligence and affective events in nurse education- a narrative review. Nurse Educ Today. 2017;53:34–40.

Jensen D, Sorensen A. Nurses experiences of working in organisations undergoing restructuring: a meta-synthesis of qualitative research studies. Int J Nurs Stud. 2017;66:7–14.

Milligan F, Wareing M, Preston-Shoot M, Pappas Y, Randhawa G, Bhandol J. Supporting nursing, midwifery and allied health professional students to raise concerns with the quality of care: a review of the research literature. Nurse Educ Today. 2017;57:29–39.

Rozendo CA, Salas AS. A critical review of social and health inequalities in the nursing curriculum. Nurse Educ Today. 2017;50:62–71.

Kiteley R, Stogdon C. Literature reviews in social work. London: Sage; 2014.

Book   Google Scholar  

Rebeiro G, Evans A, Edward K, Chapman R. Registered nurse buddies. Educators by proxy? Nurse Educ Today. 2017;55:1–4.

Sinclair S, Raffin Bouchal S, Venturato L, Milsonic-Kondejewski J, Smith Macdonald L. Compassion fatigue: a meta-narrative review of the health care literature. Int J Nurs Stud. 2017;69:9–24.

Hovey S, Dyck MJ, Reese C, Myoung JK. Nursing students’ attitudes towards persons who are aged: an integrative review. J Adv Nurs. 2017;49:145–52.

Granheim B, Shaw J, Mansah M. Use of interprofessional learning and simulation in undergraduate nursing programmes to address interprofessional communication and collaboration- an integrative review. Nurse Educ Today. 2018;62:118–27.

Philips P, Lumley E, Duncan R, Aber A, Buckley Woods H, Jones GC. A systematic review of qualitative research into people’s experiences of living with venous leg ulcers. J Adv Nurs. 2018;74:550–63.

Slater CE, Cusick A. Factors relating to self directed learning readiness of students in health professional programmes a scoping review. Nurse Educ Today. 2017;52:22–33.

Vanderspank-Wright B, Efstathiou N, Vandjk A. Critical care nurses experience of withdrawing treatment: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018;77:15–26.

Kelly M, Wills J, Sykes S. Do nurses’ personal health behaviours impact their health promotion practice? A systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2017;76:62–77.

Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in the reporting in the synthesis of qualitative research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12(1):181.

Greenhalgh T, Thorne S, Malterud K. Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? Eur J Clin Investig. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci12931 .

Aveyard H, Payne S, Preston N. A postgraduate’s guide to doing a literature review. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2016.

Thorne S. Metasynthetic madness: what kind of monster have we created? Qual Health Res. 2017;27(1):3–12.

Sibeoni J, Orri M, Colin S, Valentin M, Pradere J, Revah-Levy A. The lived experience of anorexia nervosa in adolescence, comparison of parents’ view of adolescence, parents and professionals: a meta-synthesis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2017;65:25–34.

Nightingale S, Spiby H, Sheen K, Slade P. The impact of emotional intelligence in long term health care professionals on caring behaviours towards patients in clinical and long term settings. Integrative review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018;80:106–17.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Availability of data and materials.

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Jack Straw’s Lane, Oxford, OX3 0FL, England, UK

Helen Aveyard

University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England, UK

Caroline Bradbury-Jones

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Both HA and CB-J contributed to the data collection and analysis. HA wrote the paper and CB-J commented on the drafts. HA revised the paper according to the reviewers’ comments and CB-J commented on these revisions 30/4/19. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helen Aveyard .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests, publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Aveyard, H., Bradbury-Jones, C. An analysis of current practices in undertaking literature reviews in nursing: findings from a focused mapping review and synthesis. BMC Med Res Methodol 19 , 105 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0751-7

Download citation

Received : 16 December 2018

Accepted : 07 May 2019

Published : 16 May 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0751-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Evidence synthesis
• Literature review
• Meta-ethnography
• Systematic review

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Which review is that? A guide to review types.

• Which review is that?
• Review Comparison Chart
• Decision Tool
• Critical Review
• Integrative Review
• Narrative Review
• State of the Art Review
• Narrative Summary
• Systematic Review
• Meta-analysis
• Comparative Effectiveness Review
• Diagnostic Systematic Review
• Network Meta-analysis
• Prognostic Review
• Psychometric Review
• Review of Economic Evaluations
• Systematic Review of Epidemiology Studies
• Living Systematic Reviews
• Umbrella Review
• Review of Reviews
• Rapid Review
• Rapid Evidence Assessment
• Rapid Realist Review
• Qualitative Evidence Synthesis
• Qualitative Interpretive Meta-synthesis
• Qualitative Meta-synthesis
• Qualitative Research Synthesis
• Framework Synthesis - Best-fit Framework Synthesis
• Meta-aggregation
• Meta-ethnography
• Meta-interpretation
• Meta-narrative Review
• Meta-summary
• Thematic Synthesis
• Mixed Methods Synthesis
• Narrative Synthesis
• Bayesian Meta-analysis
• EPPI-Centre Review
• Critical Interpretive Synthesis
• Realist Synthesis - Realist Review
• Scoping Review

Mapping Review

• Systematised Review
• Concept Synthesis
• Expert Opinion - Policy Review
• Technology Assessment Review
• Methodological Review
• Systematic Search and Review

Mapping reviews are an evolving method of evidence synthesis that share many similarities with the definition or goals of a scoping review. The main distinction being the involvement of stakeholders early and the review process,  the rigor of the search strategy and the presentation of results that may be in  user-friendly format, often a visual figure or graph, or a searchable database (Miake-Lye et al, 2016).

Further Reading/Resources

Key paper 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. Systematic reviews , 5 (1), 1-21. Full Text James, K. L., Randall, N. P., & Haddaway, N. R. (2016). A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environmental evidence , 5 (1), 1-13. Full Text Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health information & libraries journal , 26 (2), 91-10 8. Full Text  

Wijn, S. R., Rovers, M. M., & Hannink, G. (2022). Confounding adjustment methods in longitudinal observational data with a time-varying treatment: a mapping review. BMJ open , 12 (3), e058977. Full Text

References 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. Systematic reviews , 5 (1), 1-21. Full Text

• << Previous: Scoping Review
• Next: Systematised Review >>
• Last Updated: Mar 5, 2024 1:14 PM
• URL: https://unimelb.libguides.com/whichreview

Literature Reviews

• Getting Started
• Choosing a Type of Review
• Developing a Research Question
• Searching the Literature
• Searching Tips
• ChatGPT [beta]
• Documenting your Search
• Using Citation Managers
• Concept Mapping
• Concept Map Definition

MindMeister

• Writing the Review
• Further Resources

Additional Tools

Google slides.

GSlides can create concept maps using their Diagram feature. Insert > Diagram > Hierarchy will give you some editable templates to use.

Tutorial on diagrams in GSlides .

MICROSOFT WORD

MS Word can create concept maps using Insert > SmartArt Graphic. Select Process, Cycle, Hierarchy, or Relationship to see templates.

NVivo  is software for qualitative analysis that has a concept map feature. Zotero libraries can be uploaded using ris files. NVivo Concept Map information.

A concept map or mind map is a visual representation of knowledge that illustrates relationships between concepts or ideas. It is a tool for organizing and representing information in a hierarchical and interconnected manner. At its core, a concept map consists of nodes, which represent individual concepts or ideas, and links, which depict the relationships between these concepts .

Below is a non-exhaustive list of tools that can facilitate the creation of concept maps.

www.canva.com

Canva is a user-friendly graphic design platform that enables individuals to create visual content quickly and easily. It offers a diverse array of customizable templates, design elements, and tools, making it accessible to users with varying levels of design experience. 

Pros: comes with many pre-made concept map templates to get you started

Cons : not all features are available in the free version

Explore Canva concept map templates here .

Note: Although Canva advertises an "education" option, this is for K-12 only and does not apply to university users.

www.lucidchart.com

Lucid has two tools that can create mind maps (what they're called inside Lucid): Lucidchart is the place to build, document, and diagram, and Lucidspark is the place to ideate, connect, and plan.

Lucidchart is a collaborative online diagramming and visualization tool that allows users to create a wide range of diagrams, including flowcharts, org charts, wireframes, and mind maps. Its mind-mapping feature provides a structured framework for brainstorming ideas, organizing thoughts, and visualizing relationships between concepts. 

Lucidspark , works as a virtual whiteboard. Here, you can add sticky notes, develop ideas through freehand drawing, and collaborate with your teammates. Has only one template for mind mapping.

Explore Lucid mind map creation here .

How to create mind maps using LucidSpark:

Note: U-M students have access to Lucid through ITS. [ info here ] Choose the "Login w Google" option, use your @umich.edu account, and access should happen automatically.

www.figma.com

Figma is a cloud-based design tool that enables collaborative interface design and prototyping. It's widely used by UI/UX designers to create, prototype, and iterate on digital designs. Figma is the main design tool, and FigJam is their virtual whiteboard:

Figma  is a comprehensive design tool that enables designers to create and prototype high-fidelity designs

FigJam focuses on collaboration and brainstorming, providing a virtual whiteboard-like experience, best for concept maps

Explore FigJam concept maps here .

Note: There is a " Figma for Education " version for students that will provide access. Choose the "Login w Google" option, use your @umich.edu account, and access should happen automatically.

www.mindmeister.com

MindMeister  is an online mind mapping tool that allows users to visually organize their thoughts, ideas, and information in a structured and hierarchical format. It provides a digital canvas where users can create and manipulate nodes representing concepts or topics, and connect them with lines to show relationships and associations.

Features : collaborative, permits multiple co-authors, and multiple export formats. The free version allows up to 3 mind maps.

Explore  MindMeister templates here .

• << Previous: Using Citation Managers
• Next: Writing the Review >>
• Last Updated: Feb 29, 2024 10:31 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.umich.edu/litreview

Howard Aldrich

Kenan professor of sociology, dept of sociology @ unc chapel hill.

Powerful Tools for Mapping a Research Literature

Professor Courtney Page Tan , Assistant Professor of Human Resilience in the Department of Security and Emergency Services at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, has compiled a list of powerful literature mapping tools. You can use these tools to increase the scale and scope of the literature for your projects. Many provide stunning graphical displays of search results (Edward Tufte would approve).

Connected Papers lets you explore connected papers in a visual graph, beginning with a starter paper you select. You can start with a DOI, URL, or paper title. Purposes: (1) Get a visual overview of a new academic field; (2) Make sure you haven’t missed an important paper; (3) Create the bibliography to your thesis; and (4) Discover the most relevant prior and derivative works.

scite_ Smart Citations for Intelligent Research . Smart Citations allow users to see how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation and a classification describing whether it provides supporting or disputing evidence for the cited claim. They claim a database of over 23 million full-text articles.

Open Knowledge Maps . Calling themselves a “visual interface to the world’s scientific community,” their tool allows you to start with a few keywords to search for literature on a topic. Results display the main areas at a glance, and papers related to each area. In addition to giving you an overview of the area, it helps you identify important concepts. They highlight open access papers in their search results.

Local Citation Network . You input an article using its DOI or a scanned copy containing DOIs and the program shows you suggested articles for you to follow up.

They explain that “This web app aims to help scientists with their literature review using metadata from Microsoft Academic and Crossref . Academic papers cite one another, thus creating a citation network (= graph) . Each node (= vertex) represents an article and each edge (= link / arrow) represents a reference / citation. Citation graphs are a topic of bibliometrics, for which other great software exists as well .

This web app visualizes subsets of the global citation network that I call “local citation networks,” defined by the references of a given set of input articles. In addition, the most cited references missing in the set of input articles are suggested for further review.”

Citation Gecko Gecko is designed to help you find the most relevant papers to your research and give you a more complete sense of the research landscape. Users start from a small set of ‘seed papers’ that define an area you are interested. Gecko will search the citation network for connected papers allowing you to quickly identify important papers you may have missed.

PRISMA Flow Diagram Generator . This is the most complex of the tools. It generates a graphical representation of the flow of citations reviewed in the course of a Systematic Review. Click here for an example.

Share this:

• Directories
• Concept mapping
• Lit review-type sources
• Grey literature
• Public affairs news
• Discipline-specific tools
• Writing & research help
• Start Your Research
• Research Guides
• University of Washington Libraries
• Library Guides
• UW Libraries
• Literature review toolkit for policy studies

Literature review toolkit for policy studies: Concept mapping

Why create a concept map.

A concept map is a visualization of key idea in your research and the relationships between them. To create a concept map, pick out the main concepts of your topic and brainstorm everything you know about them, drawing shapes around your concepts and clustering the shapes in a way that's meaningful to you. How can this help?

• Helps you pull back to see the broader concepts at play.
• Can help identify the subject-based tool where literature can be found. 
• Helps clarify both what you already know and where you have gaps in your knowledge.

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Lit review-type sources >>
• Last Updated: Jan 26, 2024 11:12 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uw.edu/research/litreviewtoolkit

Evidence Synthesis and Systematic Reviews

• Common Review Types

Diagnostic Test Accuracy Review

Integrative reviews, living systematic reviews, mapping reviews.

Meta-ethnography (also known as meta-synthesis)

• Mixed Methods Reviews

Network Meta Analysis

Overview of reviews (umbrella review), review of complex interventions.

• Resources for Reviews by Discipline and Type
• Tools for Evidence Synthesis
• Grey Literature

Definition : "Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy provide a summary of test performance based on all available evidence, evaluate the quality of published studies, and account for variation in findings between studies." JBI Reviewers Handbook

When to use : When assessing the evidence from diagnostic test accuracy studies

Limitations : The unfamiliarity of methods and accuracy metrics makes it difficult to convey results to a wide audience. Results can be misinterpreted.

Resources :

• Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy
• Diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews

Definition : "A review method that summarizes past empirical or theoretical literature to provide a more comprehensive understanding of a particular phenomenon or healthcare problem (Broome 1993). Integrative reviews, thus, have the potential to build nursing science, informing research, practice, and policy initiatives. Well-done integrative reviews present the state of the science, contribute to theory development, and have direct applicability to practice and policy." 

When to use : To review experimental and non-experimental research simultaneously, to define concepts, to review theories, to review evidence/point out gaps in the literature, to analyze methodological issues.  Good for nursing issues.

Limitations : The combination and complexity of incorporating diverse methodologies can contribute to lack of rigor, inaccuracy, and bias, methods of analysis, synthesis, and conclusion-drawing remain poorly formulated, issues related to combining empirical and theoretical reports.

Resources : 

• Conducting integrative reviews: a guide for novice nursing researchers.
• Strategies for completing a successful integrative review

Definition : A systematic review which is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available by continual, active monitoring of the evidence.  They immediately include any new important evidence identified and are supported by up-to-date communication about the status of the review.

When to use : When there is a high priority (or emerging) question for policy and practice, important uncertainty in the existing evidence, emerging evidence that is likely to impact on what is currently known.

Limitations : Time consuming with continuous work flows, frequent searching and screening, team members must have a long term commitment to the project, frequent statistical analysis-can lead to inflated false-positive rate, may require technological tools to support screening, data extraction and critical analysis or risk of bias assessment, no clear agreement on methods to manage data synthesis

• Guidance for the production and publication of Cochrane living systematic reviews: Cochrane Reviews in living mode
• Living Systematic Reviews: An Emerging Opportunity to Narrow the Evidence-Practice Gap

Definition : Mapping reviews are focused on a visual synthesis of the data and are question based rather than topic based like the scoping review.

When to use : When there is an abundance and a diversity of research, as a first step to a systematic review, or to identify gaps in a topic area.

Limitations : The broad nature and rapid search may mean that some articles will be missed. They may require additional expertise or training for creating the visual output. "Foundational work is needed to better standardize the methods and products of an evidence map..." (Miake et. al. 2016)

• Systematic Mapping Studies in Software Engineering
• What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products.

Definition : A meta-ethnography brings together qualitative data to form a new interpretation of the research field.  It helps to build new theories and is not to be confused with a meta-analysis which tests a hypothesis using quantitative data.  It primarily generates theory such as program theory, implementation theory, or an explanatory theory of why the intervention works or not; hypothesis for future testing or comparison with trial outcomes.

When to use : Meta-ethnography are best designed to re-interpret meaning across many qualitative studies which could be across subject areas.

Limitations : Only appropriate for high-quality qualitative studies, can only accommodate a limited number of primary studies, choice of a meta-ethnography may not be confirmed until pool of evidence known, requires significant methodological skill and experience with qualitative methods, may take time to engage with the evidence and develop theory.

• Conducting a meta-ethnography of qualitative literature: lessons learnt.
• Meta-ethnography in healthcare research: a guide to using a meta-ethnographic approach for literature synthesis

Definition :  Synthesizes qualitative and quantitative evidence to provide a more inclusive answer to informs clinical policy or organizational decisions. 

When to use : For multidisciplinary topics or topics with a body of literature that includes quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies, to determine not only the effects of interventions but also their appropriateness, to identify research gaps, to provide an explanation for possible heterogeneity between trials, to answer multiple questions in one systematic review.

Limitations : They require significant methodological skill, they are resource intensive because they may take time to engage with the evidence and develop theory. They are not inherently reproducible or transparent because of the highly iterative nature of the interpretative process

• Toolkit for mixed studies reviews
• Five common pitfalls in mixed methods systematic reviews: lessons learned

Definition : "Network meta-analysis compares multiple interventions simultaneously by analyzing studies making different comparisons in the same analysis." Source: M. Petticrew et al. (2013)

When to use : For conditions with multiple interventions, where there are many combinations of direct or indirect interactions, to make treatment estimates for an entire treatment network instead of scanning each individual pair-wise comparison, to give the "full picture" to clinicians, potential to more explicitly "rank" treatments using summary outputs

Limitations : Requires specialist statistical expertise and software, assumes that all interventions included in the "network" are equally applicable to all populations and contexts of the studies included.

• How to Conduct a Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis
• Undertaking network meta-analyses
• Synthesizing evidence on complex interventions: how meta-analytical, qualitative, and mixed-method approaches can contribute.

Definition : A systematic review of systematic reviews.  Examines two or more systematic reviews or evidence syntheses. "The intent of this kind of review is to include systematic reviews or meta-analyses as the main study type and thus examine only the highest level of evidence."  Blackwood D (2016)

When to use : When synthesizing and combining relevant data from existing systematic reviews or meta-analyses to make better decisions, to provide clinical decision makers with the evidence they need when there are many systematic reviews.

Limitations : Limited evidence sources.  It is impossible to do an umbrella review without a core of systematic reviews on the topic.

• Overviews of Reviews
• Umbrella Reviews
• Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach.

Definition : reviews of interventions that have multiple components and complicated/multiple causal pathways, feedback loops, synergies, and/or mediators and moderators of effect.  They may also have additional complexity through population, implementation and/or context.

When to use : When the intervention has multiple components and any component may have an interventional effect, including the specific component of the intervention, between the intervention and study participants, with the intervention context, or a combination of these aspects. 

Limitations : Difficulty knowing whether an intervention is simple or complex, may be more time consuming than a non-complex review as inputs from stakeholders and the use of theory may be necessary, may require substantial adaptation of conventional review methods.

• Intervention complexity
• Practical Tools and Guidance for Systematic Review of Complex Interventions.
• << Previous: Common Review Types
• Next: Resources for Reviews by Discipline and Type >>
• Last Updated: Feb 14, 2024 8:15 AM
• URL: https://guides.temple.edu/systematicreviews

Temple University

University libraries.

See all library locations

• Library Directory
• Locations and Directions
• Frequently Called Numbers

Need help? Email us at [email protected]

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Mapping in literature reviews

Mapping in literature reviews Mapping, mind-mapping or concept-mapping are all terms for the use of diagrams to express relationships between ideas, arguments and concepts. Mapping can be used as a teaching tool to develop critical and analytical skills and to help students understand relationships in complex topics. It has been shown effective in comparison with more traditional textbook exercises (Chiou 2009). Mapping can also be used in research, for example to express relationships in data or to plan a presentation. Here we are mainly concerned with the use of mapping to build up a picture of a research area, for example as part of a literature review. Literature review is a systematic method for identifying, evaluating and interpreting the work of researchers, scholars and practitioners in a chosen field (Fink, 1998). It is an important part of academic research as it allows the researcher to identify: 1) what has already been written about in the field and 2) what the emerging issues are. The researcher can identify gaps in the knowledge that require further investigation, and/or situate a new piece of work in relation to existing literature. Beginning researchers can be overwhelmed by the amount of data they have to work with during this process, and mapping can help them to synthesize key findings and represent the complexity of the research topic in a more manageable way. Mapping techniques are useful at the very beginning of the literature review as a brainstorming and scoping tool. They come into their own again at the end with it comes to planning the write-up. Concept mapping can also be useful throughout the review process to clarify key arguments in the literature. The following are basic steps to follow when undertaking a mind or concept-mapping activity for organizing literature reviews. • Identify your topic and write it in the middle of a blank sheet of paper – this must be kept simple and broad enough to allow for a more detailed exploration. It might be the whole topic of the literature review or just one area or argument • Write down all the words and phrases that come to mind in relation to the topic. These are likely to be useful search terms when researching the relevant literature online. • Find, read and summarize key findings from journal articles, books and working papers. • Most mapping tools will allow you to include links to the relevant articles, or an abstract/summary. • Use branches to make connections between the words and references. In the case of concept maps, include a key that explains the relationship of the connecting lines. • As you read more, extend your initial ideas using more branches and nodes. Mapping as an approach to literature review

Related Papers

nurwijay anti

Prof Avgoustos Tsinakos

25th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & …

Michael Douma

Journal of Chiropractic Humanities

Genevieve Zipp

Stephanie Chu

Journal of Economic Education

Dubravka Cecez-Kecmanovic , Sebastian K Boell

The quality and success of scholarly work depends in large measure on the quality of the literature review process. This paper advances conceptual understanding of the literature review process and extends earlier guidelines on literature reviews. It proposes a hermeneutic framework that integrates the analysis and interpretation of literature and the search for literature. This hermeneutic framework describes the literature review process as fundamentally a process of developing understanding that is iterative in nature. Using the hermeneutic circle it describes the literature review process as being constituted by literature searching, classifying and mapping, critical assessment, and argument development. The hermeneutic approach emphasizes continuous engagement with and gradual development of a body of literature during which increased understanding and insights are developed. The paper contributes to better understanding of the literature review process and provides guidelines to assist researchers in conducting high quality reviews. Approaches for efficient searching are included in an Appendix.

Zurinah Suradi

David A Boley

For the past 10 years, I have used the Buzan mind mapping technique regularly for brainstorming, project management, reflection, and speech writing, to name a few examples. I prefer the free form and flexible use of space to the rigid, linear style of traditional outlines. Much of the learning effect conveyed by a mind map is through its creation. The shapes and colors of the lines and images that I draw, along with the placement of images and the size and style of the words, contribute to my ability to recall that information later. Considering the personal nature of mind mapping and its relatively novel approach to nursing education, there is no validated method for using mind maps. My goal in writing this article is to provide you, the reader, with a description of our attempt to translate this highly personal learning method into a practical teaching strategy.

RELATED PAPERS

EABR & TLC Conferences …

Haroon Sarwar

Revista de Ciencias Agrícolas

jessica pacheco

Iolanda ALFANO

Raymond Saner

Injury Prevention

Arif Tyebally

Diachronica

Pier Marco Bertinetto

International journal of health sciences

Apurva Borde

Applied Bionics and Biomechanics

Reinhard Blickhan

Jean-Yves Guincestre

JOINTECS (Journal of Information Technology and Computer Science)

Sari Ningsih

EPL (Europhysics Letters)

Giuseppe Santoro

American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine

Sozina Katuli

Livestock Science

Wiolene Nordi

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

0255 Sk.Mahmudul Hasan 7A

Alsu Khabibrakhmanova

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

Elie Poulin

Prosiding Seminar Nasional Darmajaya

Darmawan Subuh

hgkjhgh tghjfg

The Journal of Immunology

Marc Feldmann

Journal of food science

María Inés Isla

Journal of The European Ceramic Society

Silvo Drnovsek

La Granja: Revista de Ciencias de la Vida

Christian Larenas

International journal of advance research in nursing

LIJI SARA VARGHESE

Journal of Asset Management

Michael Highfield

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Mapping social innovation impact evaluation: a comprehensive literature review and prospects for future research

• Published: 12 April 2024

Cite this article

• Mohsen Nazari   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2861-2052 1 , 2 ,
• Iman Mostashar Nezami 2 &
• Ali Asgary 3  

Explore all metrics

In recent years, SI initiatives have emerged as a promising approach to addressing pressing social and environmental challenges. However, despite their proliferation and potential benefits, the evaluation frameworks for assessing their impact effectively are often lacking. This gap in the current literature on SI impact evaluation is further compounded by fragmentation, with limited established frameworks or methods for evaluating the impact of SI initiatives. To address this research gap, we conducted a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of 185 studies published in the Web of Science database from 2008 to 2023. Our rigorous analysis revealed significant research gaps and identified four thematic areas related to the development of evaluation frameworks, including collaboration and co-creation in impact evaluation of SIs, comprehensive and context-specific approaches to evaluating SI initiatives, financial factors in SI impact evaluation, and technology acceptance and SI impact. Through a content analysis of these thematic areas, our study provides key insights into the current state of research on SI impact evaluation and identifies potential avenues for future research. The findings of our study contribute to a deeper understanding of the challenges and opportunities associated with SI impact evaluation and offer valuable insights for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers working in this area.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Social innovation.

Ahmadi, H.B., Lo, H.W., Pourhejazy, P., Gupta, H., Liou, J.J.H.: Exploring the mutual influence among the social innovation factors amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Appl. Soft Comput.comput. 125 , 109157 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2022.109157

Article   Google Scholar  

Albertson, K., Fox, C., O’Leary, C., Painter, G.: Towards a theoretical framework for social impact bonds. Nonprofit Policy Forum 11 (2), 20190056 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2019-0056

Alfalih, A.A.: The role of sustainable entrepreneurship and corporate social performance on social innovation: the case of the private industrial sector in Saudi Arabia. J. Knowl. Econ.knowl. Econ. 13 (3), 1928–1943 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00798-7

Ali, I., Balta, M., Papadopoulos, T.: Social media platforms and social enterprise: bibliometric analysis and systematic review. Int. J. Inf. Manag.manag. 63 , 102510 (2022)

Google Scholar  

Alijani, S., Luna, A., Castro-Spila, J., Unceta, A.: Building capabilities through social innovation: implications for the economy and society. In: Alijani, S., Karyotis, C. (eds.) Finance and Economy for Society: Integrating Sustainability, vol. 11, pp. 293–313. Emerald Group Publishing Limited (2017)

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Alonso-Martinez, D., Gonzalez-Alvarez, N., Nieto, M.: The influence of financial performance on corporate social innovation. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag.responsib. Environ. Manag. 26 (4), 859–871 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1726

Aman, S., Seuring, S., Khalid, R.U.: Sustainability performance measurement in risk and uncertainty management: an analysis of base of the pyramid supply chain literature. Bus. Strategy Environ. 26 , 3254 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3254

Asongu, S.A., Odhiambo, N.M.: Mobile technology supply factors and mobile money innovation: thresholds for complementary policies. J. Bank. Regul.regul. 23 (3), 288–301 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41261-021-00167-z

Belcher, B.M., Claus, R., Davel, R., Jones, S.M.: Evaluating and improving the contributions of university research to social innovation. Soc. Enterp. J.enterp. J. 18 (1), 51–120 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1108/sej-10-2020-0099

Blondel, V.D., Guillaume, J.-L., Lambiotte, R., Lefebvre, E.: Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. J. Stat. Mech: Theory Exp. 2008 (10), P10008 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/p10008

Botha, L., Grobbelaar, S., Bam, W.: Towards a framework to guide the evaluation of inclusive innovation systems. S. Afr. J. Ind. Eng. 27 (3), 64–78 (2016). https://doi.org/10.7166/27-3-1632

Chen, C., Ibekwe-SanJuan, F., Hou, J.: The structure and dynamics of cocitation clusters: a multiple-perspective cocitation analysis. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 61 (7), 1386–1409 (2010)

Corvo, L., Pastore, L., Antonelli, A., Petruzzella, D.: Social impact and sustainability in short food supply chains: an experimental assessment tool. New Medit 20 (3), 175–189 (2021). https://doi.org/10.30682/nm2103l

Courtney, P., Powell, J.: Evaluating innovation in European rural development programmes: application of the social return on investment (SROI) method. Sustainability 12 (7), 2657 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072657

Cunha, J., Ferreira, C., Araujo, M., Nunes, M.L.: The mediating role of entrepreneurial intention between creativity and social innovation tendency. Soc. Enterp. J.enterp. J. 18 (2), 383–405 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-04-2021-0022

Das, D.: Development and validation of a scale for measuring sustainable supply chain management practices and performance. J. Clean. Prod. 164 , 1344–1362 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.006

Diaz-Perdomo, Y., Alvarez-Gonzalez, L.I., Sanzo-Perez, M.J.: A way to boost the impact of business on 2030 United Nations sustainable development goals: co-creation with non-profits for social innovation. Front. Psychol. 12 , 719907 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.719907

Diogo, V., Helfenstein, J., Mohr, F., Varghese, V., Debonne, N., Levers, C., Swart, R., Sonderegger, G., Nemecek, T., Schader, C.: Developing context-specific frameworks for integrated sustainability assessment of agricultural intensity change: an application for Europe. Environ Sci PolicySci Policy 137 , 128–142 (2022)

Edwards-Schachter, M., Wallace, M.L.: ‘Shaken, but not stirred’: sixty years of defining social innovation. Technol. Forecast. Social Change 119 , 64–79 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.012

Fahimnia, B., Tang, C.S., Davarzani, H., Sarkis, J.: Quantitative models for managing supply chain risks: a review. Eur. J. Operat. Res. 247 (1), 1–15 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.04.034

Faruk, M., Rahman, M., Hasan, S.: How digital marketing evolved over time: a bibliometric analysis on scopus database. Heliyon 7 (12), e08603 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08603

Feng, C.C., Chang, K.F., Lin, J.X., Lee, T.C., Lin, S.M.: Toward green transition in the post Paris agreement era: the case of Taiwan. Energy Policy 165 , 112996 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112996

Gao, Q., Cheng, C.M., Sun, G.L., Li, J.F.: The impact of digital inclusive finance on agricultural green total factor productivity: evidence from China. Front. Ecol. Evol.evol. 10 , 905644 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.905644

Greene, M., Van Rid, A.C.R.: Learning from the resourceness blind spot for service innovation at the base of the pyramid. J. Serv. Mark. 35 (7), 933–946 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1108/jsm-06-2020-0254

Hoffecker, E.: Understanding inclusive innovation processes in agricultural systems: a middle-range conceptual model. World Dev. 140 , 105382 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105382

Huang, Y., Huang, B.J., Song, J.L., Xu, X.Z., Chen, X., Zhang, Z.L., Xue, B.: Social impact assessment of photovoltaic poverty alleviation program in China. J. Clean. Prod. 290 , 125208 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125208

Islam, S.M.: Impact investing in social sector organisations: a systematic review and research agenda. Account. Finance 62 (1), 709–737 (2022)

Jiang, M.: The impact of digital inclusive finance on green total factor productivity of the service industry: new evidence from China. Transf. Bus. Econ. 21 (2B), 753–771 (2022)

Khanra, S., Dhir, A., Islam, A.K.M.N., Mäntymäki, M.: Big data analytics in healthcare: a systematic literature review. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 14 (7), 878–912 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/17517575.2020.1812005

Khanra, S., Dhir, A., Kaur, P., Mäntymäki, M.: Bibliometric analysis and literature review of ecotourism : toward sustainable development. Tour. Manag. Perspect. TMP 37 (1), 1–15 (2021a). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100777

Khanra, S., Dhir, A., Parida, V., Kohtamäki, M.: Servitization research: a review and bibliometric analysis of past achievements and future promises. J. Bus. Res. 131 , 151–166 (2021b). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.03.056

Knorringa, P., Pesa, I., Leliveld, A., van Beers, C.: Frugal innovation and development: aides or adversaries? Eur. J. Dev. Res. 28 (2), 143–153 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2016.3

Lee, E.K.M., Lee, H., Kee, C.H., Kwan, C.H., Ng, C.H.: Social impact measurement in incremental social innovation. J. Social Entrep. 12 (1), 69–86 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2019.1668830

Li, C., Bacete, G.: Mapping the technology footprint in design for social innovation. Int. J. Innov. Stud. 6 (3), 216–227 (2022)

Li, J.R., Li, B.W.: Digital inclusive finance and urban innovation: evidence from China. Rev. Dev. Econ. 26 (2), 1010–1034 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1111/rode.12846

Liu, R.R., Chen, D., Yang, S.C., Chen, Y.: Evaluation of green development efficiency of the major cities in Gansu Province, China. Sustainability 13 (6), 3034 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063034

Lombardi, M., Lopolito, A., Andriano, A.M., Prosperi, M., Stasi, A., Iannuzzi, E.: Network impact of social innovation initiatives in marginalised rural communities. Social Netw. 63 , 11–20 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2020.04.001

London, T., Esper, H.: Assessing poverty-alleviation outcomes of an enterprise-led approach to sanitation. In: Dube, L., Webb, P., Arora, N.K., Pingalid, P. (eds.) Paths of Convergence for Agriculture, Health, and Wealth, vol. 1331, pp. 90–105. Blackwell Science Publ. (2014)

MacRoberts, M.H., MacRoberts, B.R.: The mismeasure of science: citation analysis. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 69 (3), 474–482 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23970

Meister Broekema, P., Horlings, L.G., Bulder, E.: Tackling societal challenges together: co-creation strategies and social innovation in EU policy and funded projects. Eur. Policy Anal. 8 (1), 68–86 (2022)

Milley, P., Szijarto, B., Svensson, K., Cousins, J.B.: The evaluation of social innovation: a review and integration of the current empirical knowledge base. Evaluation 24 (2), 237–258 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389018763242

Molina-Maturano, J., Bucher, J., Speelman, S.: Understanding and evaluating the sustainability of frugal water innovations in Mexico: an exploratory case study. J. Clean. Prod. 274 , 122692 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122692

Mortazavi, S., Eslami, M.H., Hajikhani, A., Väätänen, J.: Mapping inclusive innovation: a bibliometric study and literature review. J. Bus. Res. 122 , 736–750 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.07.030

Mostashar Nezami, I., Nazari, M., Ansari, M.: Money matters in social innovation: exploring social innovation revenue models through bibliometric analysis. J. Advert. Sales Manag. 4 (3), 35008 (2023)

Nazari, M., Asgary, A., Nezami, I.M., Ghayourisales, S.: From resistance to resilience: a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of carbon pricing public acceptance. Energy Res. Social Sci. 107 , 103340 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103340

Novikova, M.: Social innovation impacts and their assessment: an exploratory study of a social innovation initiative from a Portuguese rural region. Social Sci. Basel 11 (3), 122 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11030122

Okitasari, M., Mishra, R., Suzuki, M.: Socio-economic drivers of community acceptance of sustainable social housing: evidence from Mumbai. Sustainability 14 (15), 9321 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159321

Özmen Uysal, Ö.: Business ethics research with an accounting focus: a bibliometric analysis from 1988 to 2007. J. Bus. Ethics 93 (1), 137–160 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0187-9

Page, L., Brin, S., Motwani, R., Winograd, T.: The pagerank citation ranking: bringing order to the web. In Proc. of the 7th International World Wide Web Conf. (1998)

Perikangas, S., Kostilainen, H., Paananen, R., Määttä, A., Kainulainen, S.: A human-centric co-creation platform for solving wicked social challenges. Social Innov. Higher Education 11 , 227 (2022)

Pesa, I.: The developmental potential of frugal innovation among mobile money agents in Kitwe, Zambia. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 30 (1), 49–65 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-017-0114-3

Phillips, W., Lee, H., Ghobadian, A., O’Regan, N., James, P.: Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: a systematic review. Group Org. Manag.manag. 40 (3), 428–461 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601114560063

Pigatto, G.A.S., Brunori, G.: Social innovation in high-quality agricultural systems: metrics for assessing processes and outcomes. Innov. Eur. J. Social Sci. Res. 34 (2), 222–250 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2020.1867519

Pranckutė, R.: Web of science (WoS) and scopus: the Titans of bibliographic information in today’s academic world. Publications 9 (1), 12 (2021)

Radner, J.M., Ferrer, M.J.S., McMahon, D., Shankar, A.H., Silver, K.L.: Practical considerations for transitioning early childhood interventions to scale: lessons from the saving brains portfolio. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1419 (1), 230–248 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13684

Ravazzoli, E., Dalla Torre, C., Da Re, R., Govigli, V.M., Secco, L., Gorriz-Mifsud, E., Pisani, E., Barlagne, C., Baselice, A., Bengoumi, M., Dijskhoorn-Dekker, M., Labidi, A., Lopolito, A., Melnykovych, M., Perlik, M., Polman, N., Sarkki, S., Vassilopoulos, A., Koundouri, P., Nijnik, M.: Can social innovation make a change in European and mediterranean marginalized areas? Social innovation impact assessment in agriculture, fisheries, forestry, and rural development. Sustainability 13 (4), 1823 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041823

Slee, B., Burlando, C., Pisani, E., Secco, L., Polman, N.: Social innovation: a preliminary exploration of a contested concept. Local Environ. 26 (7), 791–807 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2021.1933404

Spacek, M., Melnykovych, M., Kozova, M., Pauditsova, E., Kluvankova, T.: The role of knowledge in supporting the revitalisation of traditional landscape governance through social innovation in Slovakia. Environ. Policy Govern. 32 (6), 560–574 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.2026

Szijarto, B., Milley, P., Svensson, K., Cousins, J.B.: On the evaluation of social innovations and social enterprises: recognizing and integrating two solitudes in the empirical knowledge base. Eval. Progr. Plann. 66 , 20–32 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.08.010

Tang, K.Y., Chang, C.Y., Hwang, G.J.: Trends in artificial intelligence-supported e-learning: a systematic review and co-citation network analysis (1998–2019). Interact. Learn. Environ. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1875001

Tohari, A., Parsons, C., Rammohan, A.: Targeting poverty under complementarities: evidence from Indonesia’s unified targeting system. J. Dev. Econ. 140 , 127–144 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2019.06.002

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P.: Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J. Manag.manag. 14 (3), 207–222 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375

Unceta, A., Luna, Á., Castro, J., Wintjes, R.: Social innovation regime: an integrated approach to measure social innovation. Eur. Plan. Stud. 28 (5), 906–924 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1578338

van der Merwe, M.D., Grobbelaar, S.S., Meyer, I.A., Schutte, C.S.L., von Leipzig, K.H.: A framework of key growth factors for small enterprises operating at the base of the pyramid. Sustainability 12 (22), 9327 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229327

van Niekerk, L., Manderson, L., Balabanova, D.: The application of social innovation in healthcare: a scoping review. Infect. Dis. Poverty 10 (1), 26 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40249-021-00794-8

Vossenberg, S.: frugal innovation through a gender lens: towards an analytical framework. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 30 (1), 34–48 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-017-0118-z

Vrontis, D., Morea, D., Basile, G., Bonacci, I., Mazzitelli, A.: Consequences of technology and social innovation on traditional business model. Technol. Forecast. Social Change 170 , 120877 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120877

Wang, Y.P., Fahad, S., Wei, L.Q., Luo, B.W., Luo, J.C.: Assessing the role of financial development and financial inclusion to enhance environmental sustainability: do financial inclusion and eco-innovation promote sustainable development? Front. Environ. Sci. 10 , 1056478 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.1056478

White, L.: A Cook’s tour: Towards a framework for measuring the social impact of social purpose organisations. Eur. J. Oper. Res.oper. Res. 268 (3), 784–797 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.06.015

Wu, M.R.: Measurement and spatial statistical analysis of green science and technology innovation efficiency among Chinese Provinces. Environ. Ecol. Stat. 28 (2), 423–444 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10651-021-00491-7

Xu, X., Chen, X., Jia, F., Brown, S., Gong, Y., Xu, Y.: Supply chain finance: a systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 204 , 160–173 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.08.003

Yee, J., Raijmakers, B., Ichikawa, F.: Transformative learning as impact in social innovation. Des. Cult. 11 (1), 109–132 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/17547075.2019.1567984

Zhao, G., Liu, S., Wang, Y., Lopez, C., Ong, A., Chen, X.: Reducing food waste from social innovation perspective: a review of measures, research gaps and future directions. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 26 , 1–26 (2022)

Download references

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

York University, Toronto, Canada

Mohsen Nazari

Department of Business Management, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Mohsen Nazari & Iman Mostashar Nezami

Disaster and Emergency Management Program, School of Administrative Studies, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohsen Nazari .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article. Authors declare no affiliations or involvement with any organization or entity having financial or non-financial interests in the discussed subject matter or materials. The authors have no financial or proprietary interests in any material discussed in this article.

Human and animal rights

Human Research did not involve Human Participants and/or Animals.

Informed consent

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Nazari, M., Mostashar Nezami, I. & Asgary, A. Mapping social innovation impact evaluation: a comprehensive literature review and prospects for future research. Qual Quant (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-024-01868-z

Download citation

Accepted : 27 February 2024

Published : 12 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-024-01868-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Social innovation
• Social innovation impact
• Impact evaluation
• Bibliometric studies
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

3 Innovative Literature Mapping Tools for Citation Maps 

In the ever-evolving landscape of academic research, navigating through vast amounts of literature can be daunting. Enter innovative literature mapping tools, packed with unique features.

They simplify and revolutionise the way researchers interact with scientific literature, enhancing the efficiency and depth of literature reviews.

Let’s dive into how these tools are reshaping the approach to academic research.

Innovative Literature Mapping Tools

What is a literature mapping tool.

A citation mapping tool is a game-changer. Think of it as a detective tool that uncovers the intricate web of connections within scientific literature.

These tools visualise citation relationships, creating a citation map or literature map that guides you through the complex maze of scholarly papers.

One popular example is Inciteful, offering innovative literature mapping tools that not only track citation links but also analyse the context of the citation, revealing direct citation relationships and co-citation networks.

Imagine you have a ‘seed paper,’ a starting point in your literature review. A literature mapping tool then take this seed paper and branch out, finding papers:

• That cite it (direct citation relationships) or
• Those that share a thematic connection (co-citation). 

This forms a citation tree or network, showing you not just one paper but a cluster of similar papers, interconnected by their citation relationships.

More modern citation mapping tool also integrated AI. They not only map out citation relationships but also delve into the citation context or sentiment, offering a richer, more nuanced understanding of how papers are interconnected. 

Litmaps is a cutting-edge citation mapping tool that offers a unique approach to visualising the connections in scientific literature.

It’s designed to simplify and enhance the process of conducting a literature review, especially for researchers looking to map out the citation landscape of a specific topic.

At its core, Litmaps lets you visualise citation relationships in a dynamic, interactive manner. It works by creating a literature map that shows how different papers are connected through citations. 

You start with a ‘seed paper,’ and Litmaps builds a citation network around it, by:

• Identifying seminal papers,
• similar papers, and 
• Other papers that cite your chosen article.

This is particularly helpful for understanding the context and development of research in a given field.

One of the key features of Litmaps is its ability to create a citation tree. This tree not only shows direct citation relationships but also highlights co-citations. This gives you a deeper insight into how ideas and research are interconnected.

In terms of visualisation, Litmaps excels. It uses a similarity graph, not just a standard citation graph, to display connections.

This means you’re seeing a more nuanced representation of the literature, based on the similarity metric of papers, rather than just citation counts.

Litmaps also allows for a high level of customisation. You can filter papers based on:

• The number of citations,
• Publication date, and even
• Specific keywords.

This makes it a highly flexible tool for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analysis.

Litmaps also have a more user-friendly interface, and additional features like tracking the latest papers on a specific topic or a random set of systematic reviews.

Inciteful is an innovative literature mapping tool that stands out in the field of academic research for its unique approach to visualizing citation networks.

This tool is designed to make the process of literature review more intuitive and insightful, especially for researchers and scholars delving into new or complex fields.

When you use Inciteful, you start by selecting a ‘seed paper’. From this single paper, Inciteful creates a citation network, branching out to reveal not only papers that cite your chosen article but also those that are contextually related through co-citation and citation relationships.

This forms a comprehensive citation map, allowing you to see how various research pieces interconnect.

A standout feature of Inciteful is its visualization capabilities. The tool presents a citation graph, where each node represents a paper, and connecting lines indicate citation links.

This visualization helps you grasp the structure of scientific discourse in a field, revealing seminal papers, emerging trends, and key authors. You can then filter and sort papers based on keywords, number of citations, or publication date.

Inciteful isn’t just about numbers of citations; it delves deeper. The tool analyzes the context of citations, bringing to light the sentiment and relevance of each citation relationship.

This adds an extra layer of depth to your literature review, offering insights that go beyond traditional citation counting. Inciteful Incorporates metadata from various sources like:

• Google Scholar,
• Web of Science, and
• Microsoft Academic

Inciteful also ensures that its citation network is rich and current. The tool also supports importing bibliographic data in BibTeX format, making it flexible and adaptable to various research needs.

This makes Inciteful not just a powerful research tool but also a highly customizable one, suited for everything from quick overviews to in-depth systematic reviews.

Connected Papers

Connected Papers is a cool literature mapping tool that offers researchers and scholars an intuitive way to explore the citation network of a specific paper or topic.

It stands out compared to the other mapping tools for its user-friendly design and effective visualisation techniques.

Connected Papers takes a ‘seed paper’ of your choice, then generates a citation graph based on the seed paper, producing a visual network that displays how this paper is connected to others through direct citations and co-citations.

This network reveals the most relevant papers, showing you the ‘big picture’ of research trends and developments related to your topic.

The citation graph in Connected Papers isn’t just a simple map; it’s a detailed visualisation tool. Each node represents a paper, and the lines between them indicate citation relationships.

This visualisation allows you to easily identify:

• Research papers,
• Citations, and even 
• Emerging trends in the field.

You can see at a glance which papers are most cited and how they interlink, providing a comprehensive overview of the scientific landscape.

Connected Papers uses metadata and bibliographic information from databases like Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Microsoft Academic. This ensures that the citation network you’re exploring is both extensive and up-to-date.

It also supports importing data in BibTeX format, making it versatile for different research needs.

This tool is particularly valuable for researchers who are looking to map out the landscape of a new or complex field. It helps in identifying related papers that might not be immediately obvious, providing a deeper understanding of the subject matter.

Literature Review Made Easy, With Citation Map Tools

Litmaps, Inciteful, and Connected Papers represent the forefront of academic research tools, each bringing a unique approach to literature mapping.

They empower researchers with advanced visualisation, comprehensive citation networks, and user-friendly interfaces, making literature reviews more efficient and insightful.

As the landscape of scientific research continues to grow, these tools are invaluable allies in navigating and understanding the complex web of academic knowledge.

Dr Andrew Stapleton has a Masters and PhD in Chemistry from the UK and Australia. He has many years of research experience and has worked as a Postdoctoral Fellow and Associate at a number of Universities. Although having secured funding for his own research, he left academia to help others with his YouTube channel all about the inner workings of academia and how to make it work for you.

Thank you for visiting Academia Insider.

We are here to help you navigate Academia as painlessly as possible. We are supported by our readers and by visiting you are helping us earn a small amount through ads and affiliate revenue - Thank you!

2024 © Academia Insider

• Open access
• Published: 12 April 2024

Correction: Mapping study for health emergency and disaster risk management competencies and curricula: literature review and cross-sectional survey

• Kevin K. C. Hung 1 , 2 ,
• Makiko K. MacDermot 1 ,
• Theresa S. I. Hui 1 ,
• Suet Yi Chan 1 ,
• Sonoe Mashino 3 ,
• Catherine P. Y. Mok 1 ,
• Pak Ho Leung 1 ,
• Ryoma Kayano 4 ,
• Jonathan Abrahams 5 ,
• Chi Shing Wong 2 ,
• Emily Y. Y. Chan 1 , 2 &
• Colin A. Graham   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4381-7470 1 , 2  

Globalization and Health volume  20 , Article number:  30 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

11 Accesses

Metrics details

The Original Article was published on 21 February 2024

Globalization and Health (2024) 20:15

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-023-01010-y

Following publication of the original article, it was brought to the journal's attention that the article had published with the wrong license: it had published with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, whereas the correct license is the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO License. The license has been corrected in the published article. The publisher thanks you for reading this erratum and apologizes for any inconvenience caused.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Accident and Emergency Medicine Academic Unit, Trauma & Emergency Centre, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, New Territories, Shatin, Hong Kong

Kevin K. C. Hung, Makiko K. MacDermot, Theresa S. I. Hui, Suet Yi Chan, Catherine P. Y. Mok, Pak Ho Leung, Emily Y. Y. Chan & Colin A. Graham

Collaborating Centre for Oxford University, JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Chinese University of Hong Kong for Disaster and Medical Humanitarian Response (CCOUC), The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong, China

Kevin K. C. Hung, Chi Shing Wong, Emily Y. Y. Chan & Colin A. Graham

Research Institute of Nursing Care for People and Community, University of Hyogo, 673-8588, Akashi, Japan

Sonoe Mashino

World Health Organization, Centre for Health Development, 651-0073, Kobe, Japan

Ryoma Kayano

Disaster Resilience Initiative, Monash University, Monash University, Clayton, Australia

Jonathan Abrahams

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Colin A. Graham .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The online version of the original article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-023-01010-y .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Hung, K.K.C., MacDermot, M.K., Hui, T.S.I. et al. Correction: Mapping study for health emergency and disaster risk management competencies and curricula: literature review and cross-sectional survey. Global Health 20 , 30 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-024-01037-9

Download citation

Published : 12 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-024-01037-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Globalization and Health

ISSN: 1744-8603

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]