Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them

Neal R. Haddaway, Alison Bethel, Lynn V. Dicks, Julia Koricheva, Biljana Macura, Gillian Petrokofsky, Andrew S. Pullin, Sini Savilaakso, Gavin B. Stewart

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Traditional approaches to reviewing literature may be susceptible to bias and result in incorrect decisions. This is of particular concern when reviews address policy- and practice-relevant questions. Systematic reviews have been introduced as a more rigorous approach to synthesizing evidence across studies; they rely on a suite of evidence-based methods aimed at maximizing rigour and minimizing susceptibility to bias. Despite the increasing popularity of systematic reviews in the environmental field, evidence synthesis methods continue to be poorly applied in practice, resulting in the publication of syntheses that are highly susceptible to bias. Recognizing the constraints that researchers can sometimes feel when attempting to plan, conduct and publish rigorous and comprehensive evidence syntheses, we aim here to identify major pitfalls in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews, making use of recent examples from across the field. Adopting a ‘critical friend’ role in supporting would-be systematic reviews and avoiding individual responses to police use of the ‘systematic review’ label, we go on to identify methodological solutions to mitigate these pitfalls. We then highlight existing support available to avoid these issues and call on the entire community, including systematic review specialists, to work towards better evidence syntheses for better evidence and better decisions.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1582–1589
Number of pages8
JournalNature Ecology & Evolution
Volume4
Issue number12
Early online date12 Oct 2020
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2020

Cite this