1. Searching the literature
   1. This is the beginning of the data collection phase. At this time, authors must identify a range of information sources as well as the studies that are pertinent to the review.
2. Screening for inclusion
   1. The next step of the data collection phase includes evaluating the applicability of the studies previously identified and selecting or excluding them.
3. Assessing quality
   1. This step involves assessing the methodological quality of the primary studies.
4. Extracting data
   1. This step involves gathering applicable information from each of the primary studies included in the review.
5. Analyzing and synthesizing data
   1. This last step requires authors to organize, compare, collate, summarize, aggregate or interpret the information previously extracted in order to suggest a new contribution to knowledge.
6. A Systematic Review of Scholarly Research on the Content of Wikipedia
   1. Quality of Content
      1. Comprehensiveness
      2. Multidisciplinary and general
      3. Medicine and health
      4. Histoty
      5. Psychology
      6. Biology
      7. Communication
      8. Currency
      9. Readability and Style
      10. Reliability
          1. Reliability assessment of Wikipedia
             1. positive or equivalent evaluations
             2. negative or inferior evaluations
             3. verifiability: citing other sources
             4. quality-related trends
      11. Antecedents of Quality
          1. Group characteristics
          2. Editing patterns and processes
      12. Featured Articles
   2. Size of Wikipedia
      1. Micro-Level Size Factors
      2. Macro-Level Size Factors
7. serve as the background for an empirical study or as an independent, standalone piece that provides a valuable contribution in its own right
   1. Task A
   2. Task B
   3. Task C
8. General procedure
   1. Formulation the problem
      1. This step requires authors to define the review's objective(s), provide definitions of key concepts and justify the need for a review article
9. Guidelines to Evaluate Standalone Literature Reviews
   1. reviewed the reference lists of the abovementioned sources
   2. selected those papers that offer practical or pragmatic guidelines on how to perform literature reviews
   3. validated our list of papers using the backward and forward search techniques
   4. carefully scrutinized each paper
   5. reflected on the usefulness and necessity of each activity, or guideline, in the review process by questioning how it satisfied a specific purpose in terms of the study’s methodological rigor
10. Types of Literature Review
    1. Narrative reviews
       1. summarize previously published research on a topic of interest
    2. Developmental reviews
       1. provide a research community with new conceptualizations, research models, theories, frameworks or methodological approaches
    3. Cumulative reviews
       1. compile empirical evidence to map bodies of literature and draw overall conclusions regarding particular topics od interest
    4. Aggregative reviews
       1. bring together prior findings and test specific research hypotheses or propositions. By rigorously collating and pooling prior empirical data, aggregative reviews are particularly valued for providing evidence-based validations of pre-specified theoretical models and propositions.
    5. Descriptive review
       1. seek to determine the extent to which a body of empirical studies in a specific research area supports or reveals any interpretable patterns or trends with respect to pre-existing propositions, theories, methodologies or findings
    6. Scoping reviews
       1. attempt to provide an initial indication of the potential size and nature of the available literature on a particular topic
    7. Meta-analysis
       1. use specific data extraction techniques and statistical methods to aggregate quantitative data in the form of standard effect measures
    8. Qualitative systematic reviews
       1. attempt to search, identify, select, appraise, and abstract data from quantitative empirical studies to answer the following main questions
    9. Umbrella reviews
       1. a tertiary type of study that integrates relevant evidence from multiple systematic reviews (qualitative or quantitative) into one accessible and usable document to address a narrow research question
    10. Theoretical reviews
        1. draws on existing conceptual and empirical studies to provide a context for identifying, describing, and transforming into a higher order of theoretical structure and various concepts, constructs or relationships
    11. Realist reviews
        1. theory-driven interpretative reviews that were developed to inform, enhance, extend or alternatively supplement conventional systematic reviews by making sense of heterogeneous evidence about complex interventions applied in diverse contexts in a way that informs policy decision making
    12. Critical reviews
        1. aim to critically analyze the extant literature on a broad topic to reveal weaknesses, contradictions, controversies, or inconsistencies
11. the goal of rigor
    1. define internal validity as the extent to which the review represents accurately the phenomena it is intended to describe or explain
    2. define objectivity as the extent to which a review’s findings are determined by the objects of the inquiry and not by the researchers’ biases and values
    3. define external validity as the extent to which the findings have applicability in other contexts
    4. define external validity as the extent to which the findings have applicability in other contexts