Figure 1
The two-by-two matrix diagram has two axes: the vertical labeled “Generativity: contribution to theory,” with two rows, Weak and Strong, and the horizontal labeled “Systematicity: rigorous and transparent methodology,” with two columns, Weak and Strong. The data from the cells are as follows: Top left: “Viewpoint or theoretical slash conceptual paper—Intriguing but not developed from a systematic review” Top right: “Submission-ready review research—Rigorous, transparent and knowledge-contributing” Bottom left: “Premature work—Lacks rigor, transparency, and insights” Bottom right: “Descriptive paper—Rigorous and transparent but provides little new knowledge”.Systematicity and generativity in review research. Note: Successful review articles achieve both systematicity and generativity to meet the expectations of editors and reviewers. However, it is important to acknowledge that labels such as “weak” and “strong” can carry different meanings across various research traditions and methodological paradigms. What constitutes “strong systematicity” or “strong generativity” may vary depending on the disciplinary context, the specific expectations of journals and the onto-epistemological assumptions underlying the research. Source: Authors’ own work