what are the advantages and disadvantages of literature review

Advantages and disadvantages of literature review

This comprehensive article explores some of the advantages and disadvantages of literature review in research. Reviewing relevant literature is a key area in research, and indeed, it is a research activity in itself. It helps researchers investigate a particular topic in detail. However, it has some limitations as well.

What is literature review?

In order to understand the advantages and disadvantages of literature review, it is important to understand what a literature review is and how it differs from other methods of research. According to Jones and Gratton (2009) a literature review essentially consists of critically reading, evaluating, and organising existing literature on a topic to assess the state of knowledge in the area. It is sometimes called critical review.

A literature review is a select analysis of existing research which is relevant to a researcher’s selected topic, showing how it relates to their investigation. It explains and justifies how their investigation may help answer some of the questions or gaps in the chosen area of study (University of Reading, 2022).

A literature review is a term used in the field of research to describe a systematic and methodical investigation of the relevant literature on a particular topic. In other words, it is an analysis of existing research on a topic in order to identify any relevant studies and draw conclusions about the topic.

A literature review is not the same as a bibliography or a database search. Rather than simply listing references to sources of information, a literature review involves critically evaluating and summarizing existing research on a topic. As such, it is a much more detailed and complex process than simply searching databases and websites, and it requires a lot of effort and skills.

Advantages of literature review

Information synthesis

A literature review is a very thorough and methodical exercise. It can be used to synthesize information and draw conclusions about a particular topic. Through a careful evaluation and critical summarization, researchers can draw a clear and comprehensive picture of the chosen topic.

Familiarity with the current knowledge

According to the University of Illinois (2022), literature reviews allow researchers to gain familiarity with the existing knowledge in their selected field, as well as the boundaries and limitations of that field.

Creation of new body of knowledge

One of the key advantages of literature review is that it creates new body of knowledge. Through careful evaluation and critical summarisation, researchers can create a new body of knowledge and enrich the field of study.

Answers to a range of questions

Literature reviews help researchers analyse the existing body of knowledge to determine the answers to a range of questions concerning a particular subject.

Disadvantages of literature review

Time consuming

As a literature review involves collecting and evaluating research and summarizing the findings, it requires a significant amount of time. To conduct a comprehensive review, researchers need to read many different articles and analyse a lot of data. This means that their review will take a long time to complete.

Lack of quality sources  

Researchers are expected to use a wide variety of sources of information to present a comprehensive review. However, it may sometimes be challenging for them to identify the quality sources because of the availability of huge numbers in their chosen field. It may also happen because of the lack of past empirical work, particularly if the selected topic is an unpopular one.

Descriptive writing

One of the major disadvantages of literature review is that instead of critical appreciation, some researchers end up developing reviews that are mostly descriptive. Their reviews are often more like summaries of the work of other writers and lack in criticality. It is worth noting that they must go beyond describing the literature.

Key features of literature review

Clear organisation

A literature review is typically a very critical and thorough process. Universities usually recommend students a particular structure to develop their reviews. Like all other academic writings, a review starts with an introduction and ends with a conclusion. Between the beginning and the end, researchers present the main body of the review containing the critical discussion of sources.

No obvious bias

A key feature of a literature review is that it should be very unbiased and objective. However, it should be mentioned that researchers may sometimes be influenced by their own opinions of the world.

Proper citation

One of the key features of literature review is that it must be properly cited. Researchers should include all the sources that they have used for information. They must do citations and provide a reference list by the end in line with a recognized referencing system such as Harvard.

To conclude this article, it can be said that a literature review is a type of research that seeks to examine and summarise existing research on a particular topic. It is an essential part of a dissertation/thesis. However, it is not an easy thing to handle by an inexperienced person. It also requires a lot of time and patience.

Hope you like this ‘Advantages and disadvantages of literature review’. Please share this with others to support our research work.

Other useful articles:

How to evaluate website content

Advantages and disadvantages of primary and secondary research

Advantages and disadvantages of simple random sampling

Last update: 08 May 2022

References:

Jones, I., & Gratton, C. (2009) Research Methods for Sports Shttps://www.howandwhat.net/new/evaluate-website-content/tudies, 2 nd edition, London: Routledge

University of Illinois (2022) Literature review, available at: https://www.uis.edu/learning-hub/writing-resources/handouts/learning-hub/literature-review (accessed 08 May 2022)

University of Reading (2022) Literature reviews, available at: https://libguides.reading.ac.uk/literaturereview/starting (accessed 07 May 2022)

Author: M Rahman

M Rahman writes extensively online and offline with an emphasis on business management, marketing, and tourism. He is a lecturer in Management and Marketing. He holds an MSc in Tourism & Hospitality from the University of Sunderland. Also, graduated from Leeds Metropolitan University with a BA in Business & Management Studies and completed a DTLLS (Diploma in Teaching in the Life-Long Learning Sector) from London South Bank University.

Related Posts

How to be a good team player, competitive advantage for tourist destinations, advantages and disadvantages of snowball sampling.

Dissertations - Skills Guide

• Where to start
• Research Proposal
• Ethics Form
• Primary Research

Literature Review

• Methodology
• Downloadable Resources
• Further Reading

What is it?

Literature reviews involve collecting information from literature that is already available, similar to a long essay. It is a written argument that builds a case from previous research (Machi and McEvoy, 2012). Every dissertation should include a literature review, but a dissertation as a whole can be a literature review. In this section we discuss literature reviews for the whole dissertation.

What are the benefits of a literature review?

There are advantages and disadvantages to any approach. The advantages of conducting a literature review include accessibility, deeper understanding of your chosen topic, identifying experts and current research within that area, and answering key questions about current research. The disadvantages might include not providing new information on the subject and, depending on the subject area, you may have to include information that is out of date.

How do I write it?

A literature review is often split into chapters, you can choose if these chapters have titles that represent the information within them, or call them chapter 1, chapter 2, ect. A regular format for a literature review is:

Introduction (including methodology)

This particular example is split into 6 sections, however it may be more or less depending on your topic.

Literature Reviews Further Reading

• << Previous: Primary Research
• Next: Methodology >>
• Last Updated: Oct 18, 2023 9:32 AM
• URL: https://libguides.derby.ac.uk/c.php?g=690330

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

• What is a literature review?
• Steps in the Literature Review Process
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support

What is a Literature Review?

A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations. It contains the most pertinent studies and points to important past and current research and practices. It provides background and context, and shows how your research will contribute to the field. 

A literature review should: 

• Provide a comprehensive and updated review of the literature;
• Explain why this review has taken place;
• Articulate a position or hypothesis;
• Acknowledge and account for conflicting and corroborating points of view

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

A literature review can be written as an introduction to a study to:

• Demonstrate how a study fills a gap in research
• Compare a study with other research that's been done

Or it can be a separate work (a research article on its own) which:

• Organizes or describes a topic
• Describes variables within a particular issue/problem

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

• It's a snapshot in time. Unlike other reviews, this one has beginning, a middle and an end. There may be future developments that could make your work less relevant.
• It may be too focused. Some niche studies may miss the bigger picture.
• It can be difficult to be comprehensive. There is no way to make sure all the literature on a topic was considered.
• It is easy to be biased if you stick to top tier journals. There may be other places where people are publishing exemplary research. Look to open access publications and conferences to reflect a more inclusive collection. Also, make sure to include opposing views (and not just supporting evidence).

Source: Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. “A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies.” Health Information & Libraries Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, June 2009, pp. 91–108. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

Carolyn Cunningham : Human Development & Family Sciences, Psychology, Sociology

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

Janelle Hedstrom : Special Education, Curriculum & Instruction, Ed Leadership & Policy ​

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

For help in other subject areas, please see the guide to library specialists by subject .

Periodically, UT Libraries runs a workshop covering the basics and library support for literature reviews. While we try to offer these once per academic year, we find providing the recording to be helpful to community members who have missed the session. Following is the most recent recording of the workshop, Conducting a Literature Review. To view the recording, a UT login is required.

• October 26, 2022 recording
• Last Updated: Oct 26, 2022 2:49 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

• Search for relevant literature
• Evaluate sources
• Identify themes, debates, and gaps
• Outline the structure
• Write your literature review

A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and its scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
• Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.

• Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
• Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
• Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
• Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)

You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.

Download Word doc Download Google doc

Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .

If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research problem and questions .

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list as you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.

• Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
• Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
• Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth

Search for relevant sources

Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some useful databases to search for journals and articles include:

• Your university’s library catalogue
• Google Scholar
• Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
• Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
• EconLit (economics)
• Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)

You can also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.

Make sure to read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.

You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.

For each publication, ask yourself:

• What question or problem is the author addressing?
• What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
• What are the key theories, models, and methods?
• Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
• What are the results and conclusions of the study?
• How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

Make sure the sources you use are credible , and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.

You can use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.

Take notes and cite your sources

As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.

It is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing - try for free!

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Try for free

To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:

• Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
• Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
• Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
• Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
• Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?

This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.

• Most research has focused on young women.
• There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
• But there is still a lack of robust research on highly visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat—this is a gap that you could address in your own research.

There are various approaches to organizing the body of a literature review. Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order.

Try to analyze patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.

If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.

For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.

Methodological

If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:

• Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
• Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources

Theoretical

A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.

You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.

Like any other academic text , your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.

The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.

As you write, you can follow these tips:

• Summarize and synthesize: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers — add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transition words and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts

In the conclusion, you should summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance.

When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !

This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.

Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

• To familiarize yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
• To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
• To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
• To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
• To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other  academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An  annotated bibliography is a list of  source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a  paper .  

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved March 25, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Literature Review: Types of literature reviews

• Traditional or narrative literature reviews
• Scoping Reviews
• Systematic literature reviews
• Annotated bibliography
• Keeping up to date with literature
• Finding a thesis
• Evaluating sources and critical appraisal of literature
• Managing and analysing your literature
• Further reading and resources

Types of literature reviews

The type of literature review you write will depend on your discipline and whether you are a researcher writing your PhD, publishing a study in a journal or completing an assessment task in your undergraduate study.

A literature review for a subject in an undergraduate degree will not be as comprehensive as the literature review required for a PhD thesis.

An undergraduate literature review may be in the form of an annotated bibliography or a narrative review of a small selection of literature, for example ten relevant articles. If you are asked to write a literature review, and you are an undergraduate student, be guided by your subject coordinator or lecturer.

The common types of literature reviews will be explained in the pages of this section.

• Narrative or traditional literature reviews
• Critically Appraised Topic (CAT)
• Scoping reviews
• Annotated bibliographies

These are not the only types of reviews of literature that can be conducted. Often the term "review" and "literature" can be confusing and used in the wrong context. Grant and Booth (2009) attempt to clear up this confusion by discussing 14 review types and the associated methodology, and advantages and disadvantages associated with each review.

Grant, M. J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies . Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26 , 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

What's the difference between reviews?

Researchers, academics, and librarians all use various terms to describe different types of literature reviews, and there is often inconsistency in the ways the types are discussed. Here are a couple of simple explanations.

• The image below describes common review types in terms of speed, detail, risk of bias, and comprehensiveness:

"Schematic of the main differences between the types of literature review" by Brennan, M. L., Arlt, S. P., Belshaw, Z., Buckley, L., Corah, L., Doit, H., Fajt, V. R., Grindlay, D., Moberly, H. K., Morrow, L. D., Stavisky, J., & White, C. (2020). Critically Appraised Topics (CATs) in veterinary medicine: Applying evidence in clinical practice. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7 , 314. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00314 is licensed under CC BY 3.0

• The table below lists four of the most common types of review , as adapted from a widely used typology of fourteen types of reviews (Grant & Booth, 2009).  

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), 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

See also the Library's  Literature Review guide.

Critical Appraised Topic (CAT)

For information on conducting a Critically Appraised Topic or CAT

Callander, J., Anstey, A. V., Ingram, J. R., Limpens, J., Flohr, C., & Spuls, P. I. (2017).  How to write a Critically Appraised Topic: evidence to underpin routine clinical practice.  British Journal of Dermatology (1951), 177(4), 1007-1013. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.15873 

Books on Literature Reviews

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Traditional or narrative literature reviews >>
• Last Updated: Jan 16, 2024 1:39 PM
• URL: https://libguides.csu.edu.au/review

Charles Sturt University is an Australian University, TEQSA Provider Identification: PRV12018. CRICOS Provider: 00005F.

• Open access
• Published: 04 September 2016

Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews

• Jennifer A. Byrne 1 , 2  

Research Integrity and Peer Review volume  1 , Article number:  12 ( 2016 ) Cite this article

23k Accesses

72 Citations

29 Altmetric

Metrics details

As the size of the published scientific literature has increased exponentially over the past 30 years, review articles play an increasingly important role in helping researchers to make sense of original research results. Literature reviews can be broadly classified as either “systematic” or “narrative”. Narrative reviews may be broader in scope than systematic reviews, but have been criticised for lacking synthesis and rigour. The submission of more scientific manuscripts requires more researchers acting as peer reviewers, which requires adding greater numbers of new reviewers to the reviewing population over time. However, whereas there are many easily accessible guides for reviewers of primary research manuscripts, there are few similar resources to assist reviewers of narrative reviews. Here, I summarise why literature reviews are valued by their diverse readership and how peer reviewers with different levels of content expertise can improve the reliability and accessibility of narrative review articles. I then provide a number of recommendations for peer reviewers of narrative literature reviews, to improve the integrity of the scientific literature, while also ensuring that narrative review articles meet the needs of both expert and non-expert readers.

Peer Review reports

Over the past 30 years, the size of the published scientific literature has expanded exponentially [ 1 ]. While it has been argued that this rate of expansion is unsustainable [ 2 ], underlying factors such as greater numbers of scientists and scientific journals [ 3 ] are unlikely to change in the short term. The submission of more manuscripts for publication requires more peer reviewers, yet the current demand for capable, available manuscript reviewers is not being met [ 3 ]. This has serious adverse consequences for the validity of published research and overall trust in science [ 3 ].

Review articles help both experts and non-experts to make sense of the increasing volume of original publications [ 4 , 5 ]. Busy clinicians have a particular reliance upon review articles, because of their constant need for reliable, up-to-date information, yet limited available time [ 6 ]. Literature reviews can also help other content experts such as researchers and policymakers to identify gaps in their own reading and knowledge. However, literature reviews are also sought by readers with little or no prior understanding of the reviewed topic, such as researchers seeking to rapidly triage results from high-throughput analyses and students for whom literature reviews can represent entry points into a new field. For the benefit of both expert and non-expert readers, it is essential that review articles accurately synthesise the relevant literature in a comprehensive, transparent and objective manner [ 7 , 8 ].

Numbers of review articles are increasing in fields where this has been measured [ 4 ], as is the diversity of review types published [ 9 , 10 ]. Although there are now many review sub-types that can be distinguished based upon the literature search, appraisal, synthesis and analysis methods used [ 9 , 10 ], review articles can be broadly classified as either “systematic” or “narrative” [ 5 , 11 ]. Systematic reviews take defined approaches to the identification and synthesis of study findings and include other review sub-types such as evidence maps [ 12 ]. The systematic review is considered to be the gold standard of evidence synthesis, but also carries the potential disadvantages of narrow scope [ 11 ], and requiring more time and resources to prepare and update [ 7 ]. Narrative reviews, also referred to as “traditional reviews” [ 5 ] and “literature reviews” [ 9 ], constitute the majority of review articles published in some fields [ 7 ]. Other review sub-types, such as rapid and scoping reviews also present information in a narrative format [ 9 ]. Narrative reviews have been criticised for rarely employing peer-reviewed methodologies, or duplicate curation of evidence [ 5 ], and for often failing to disclose study inclusion criteria [ 11 ]. Despite these limitations, narrative reviews remain frequent within the literature, as they offer breadth of literature coverage and flexibility to deal with evolving knowledge and concepts [ 11 ]. In this article, I will provide advice regarding the peer review of narrative reviews, and the advice presented aims to be broadly applicable. I will not attempt to provide advice regarding the peer review of systematic reviews [ 13 , 14 ].

Given the broad readership of literature reviews, content and methodology experts as well as reviewers with less directly relevant expertise can play important roles in the peer-review process [ 15 ]. Peer reviewers with related content expertise are best placed to assess the reliability of the information presented, while other reviewers can ensure that this information remains accessible to readers with different levels of prior knowledge. However, whereas there are easily accessible guides for reviewers of primary research manuscripts [ 16 , 17 ], there are few similar resources available for reviewers of literature reviews [ 15 , 18 ]. This article therefore proposes a number of recommendations for peer reviewers (Table  1 ) to ensure that narrative literature review articles make the best possible contributions to their fields, while also meeting their readers’ often diverse needs.

Ask whether the literature review justifies its place in the literature

Lower than expected ratios between numbers of original publications and review articles suggest excessive numbers of reviews in some fields, which may contribute to the very problem that review articles aim to solve [ 4 ]. With rapidly rising publication rates in many fields [ 2 ], even content-expert peer reviewers should check publication databases for similar and/or overlapping review articles as part of the peer-review process. Pre-empting such scrutiny, authors should clearly define the review’s scope and what it intends to achieve [ 8 ]. If there have been other recent reviews of the same or similar topics, the authors should explain how their manuscript is unique. This could be through combining literature from related fields, by updating existing reviews in light of new research evidence [ 8 ], or because published reviews may have been subject to bias. A clear definition of a review’s scope is a recognised tool to reduce evidence selection bias [ 19 ]. Review authors can also define their subject by referring to literature reviews of related topics that will not be explored in depth. These definitions and statements should form part of an overall narrative structure that helps readers to anticipate and understand the information presented [ 20 ].

Ask whether the literature searches conducted were clearly defined

A criticism frequently levelled at traditional or narrative reviews is that they do not always state or follow rules regarding literature searches [ 5 , 7 , 11 ]. Providing evidence that comprehensive literature searches have been conducted, preferably according to pre-defined eligibility criteria [ 19 ], increases confidence that the review’s findings and conclusions are reliable, and have not been subject to selection bias. Ideally, any literature search choices made by the authors should be clearly stated, transparent and reproducible [ 11 ].

Check for citation breadth and balance

Consider whether the authors have cited a comprehensive range of literature or whether they have tended to cite papers that support their own point of view. If there are important papers that have not been cited, suggest to the authors that these be added, and explain why. If only a limited number of articles can be cited due to the journal’s requirements, check that these studies are representative of those available.

Where possible, verify that information has been summarised correctly

Many different types of citation errors can be identified in the research literature [ 21 , 22 ], and these may occur regardless of the journal impact factor [ 22 ]. The increasing size and complexity of primary reports [ 3 ] also render data extraction and summary more challenging. Realistically, it is unlikely that individual peer reviewers will have detailed knowledge of any full review topic [ 19 ]. Nonetheless, if you are a content expert, take time to cross-reference at least some individual statements to citations, for the particular benefit of non-expert readers. If your level of expertise means that you are unable to verify the accuracy of particular sections of the review, you should indicate this to your editor. Peer reviewers can also ask about data extraction methods, if these were not described in the manuscript. Adopting systematic review practices, such as duplicate independent data extraction, or independent data extraction and validation, can reduce content errors and increase reliability [ 19 ].

Check that original references have been cited

Authors sometimes incorrectly cite original studies, both in original manuscripts and reviews [ 23 , 24 ]. While checking the content, ask whether descriptions of original findings were referenced accordingly, as opposed to being incorrectly attributed to reviews [ 23 ].

Consider how studies were critically evaluated

Beyond correct data summary, narrative literature reviews should include critical data appraisal and some level of data synthesis. How this should be done varies according to the review scope and methodology [ 9 , 10 , 19 ]. While some narrative reviews reasonably focus on breadth as opposed to depth of literature coverage [ 10 ], limited or poor data appraisal risks placing undue emphasis on poor quality research [ 9 ]. Evaluating at least some aspects of the methods used by individual studies can improve reliability [ 7 ]. Similarly, ask how the authors have interpreted conflicting findings or studies with apparently outlying results [ 9 , 11 ].

Evaluate whether tables/figures/diagrams support the text

While not all literature reviews need to include figures or tables, these can help to summarise findings and make key messages clearer. Some detailed information may be best presented in tables, with a shorter summary within the text. Tables can improve the availability of quantitative data for cross-checking, better demonstrate the results of qualitative or quantitative data synthesis, and reassure both peer reviewers and readers that comprehensive, objective analyses have been performed. If figures or tables are included, these need to be original; otherwise, the authors need to have obtained permission to reproduce these from an original source.

Consider whether the review will help someone entering the field

Literature reviews are not always read by subject experts, and it is important that the peer-review process considers this. Reviewers who are not direct content experts may valuably request clarification of nomenclature and/or historical issues that may have seemed too obvious for the authors to have explained. Summary diagrams suggested by peer reviewers may help make a literature review more accessible to a broader audience.

Ask whether the review expands the body of knowledge

Ultimately, the goal of a literature review should be to further the body of knowledge [ 18 ]. Extending or developing ideas is clearly a difficult task, and is often the weakest section of a review [ 25 ]. Consider therefore whether the authors have derived and clearly presented new ideas and/or new research directions from any identified knowledge gaps. Having read the manuscript with fresh eyes, peer reviewers may have valuable ideas to contribute.

Do not forget the rules for reviewing manuscripts in general

The review of literature reviews has some particular considerations, but all the usual manuscript review rules also apply, such as managing conflicts of interest and allocating appropriate time [ 16 , 17 ]. Try to separate the assessment of language and grammar from the more important assessment of scientific quality and remain aware that expert reviewers risk bringing their own biases to the peer-review process [ 15 ].

Conclusions

More quality peer reviewers are needed within the scientific community [ 3 ], including those with the capacity and confidence to review narrative literature reviews. Although it has been difficult to identify predictors of peer-reviewer performance and effective training methods, younger reviewer age has been reproducibly associated with better quality manuscript reviews [ 26 , 27 ]. This association suggests that peer reviewers should be recruited relatively early in their careers, and encouraged to participate widely in manuscript review. Associations between younger peer-reviewer age and better manuscript reviews may also highlight the need for regular training, to ensure that the peer-review community remains up-to-date regarding new approaches to editing or reviewing manuscripts. Indeed, a recent industry survey reported that over three quarters of researchers were interested in further reviewer training [ 28 ]. I therefore hope that this article will add to existing resources [ 29 ] to encourage less experienced peer reviewers to extend their efforts towards narrative literature reviews.

Bornmann L, Mutz R. Growth rates of modern science: a bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. J Assoc Inform Sci Tech. 2015;66(11):2215–22.

Google Scholar  

Pautasso M. Publication growth in biological sub-fields: patterns, predictability and sustainability. Sustainability. 2012;4(12):3234–47.

Article   Google Scholar  

Siebert S, Machesky LM, Insall RH. Overflow in science and its implications for trust. Elife. 2015;4: doi: 10.7554/eLife.10825 .

Ketcham CM, Crawford JM. The impact of review articles. Lab Invest. 2007;87(12):1174–85.

Dijkers MP. Task Force on Systematic Reviews and Guidelines. The value of traditional reviews in the era of systematic reviewing. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;88(5):423–30.

McAlister FA, Clark HD, van Walraven C, Straus SE, Lawson FM, Moher D, et al. The medical review article revisited: has the science improved? Ann Intern Med. 1999;131(12):947–51.

Haddaway NR, Woodcock P, Macura B, Collins A. Making literature reviews more reliable through application of lessons from systematic reviews. Conserv Biol. 2015;29(6):1596–605.

Pautasso M. Ten simple rules for writing a literature review. PLoS Comput Biol. 2013;9(7):e1003149.

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

Paré G, Trudel M-C, Jaana M, Kitsiou S. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: a typology of literature reviews. Inform Management. 2015;52(2):183–99.

Collins JA, Fauser BCJM. Balancing the strengths of systematic and narrative reviews. Hum Reprod Update. 2005;11(2):103–4.

Miake-Lye IM, Hempel S, Shanman R, Shekelle PG. What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products. Syst Rev. 2016;5:28.

Higgins JPT, Green S. Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration, John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2011.

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.

Oxman AJ. Checklists for review articles. BMJ. 1994;309(6955):648–51.

Bourne PE, Korngreen A. Ten simple rules for reviewers. PLoS Comput Biol. 2006;2(9):e110.

Nicholas KA, Gordon W. A quick guide to writing a solid peer review. Eos. 2011;92(28):233–4.

Jennex ME. Literature reviews and the review process: an editor-in-chief’s perspective. CAIS. 2015;36:8.

O’Connor A, Sargeant J. Research synthesis in veterinary science: narrative reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Vet J. 2015;206(3):261–7.

Docherty M, Smith R. The case for structuring the discussion of scientific papers. BMJ. 1999;318(7193):1224–5.

Davids JR, Weigl DM, Edmonds JP, Blackhurst DW. Reference accuracy in peer-reviewed pediatric orthopaedic literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(5):1155–61.

Awrey J, Inaba K, Barmparas G, Recinos G, Teixeira PG, Chan LS, et al. Reference accuracy in the general surgery literature. World J Surg. 2011;35(3):475–9.

Gavras H. Inappropriate attribution: the “lazy author syndrome”. Am J Hypertens. 2002;15(9):831.

Katz TJ. Propagation of errors in review articles. Science. 2006;313(5791):1236.

Webster J, Watson RT. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Q. 2002;26:2.

Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA. 1998;280(3):231–3.

Callaham ML, Tercier J. The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Med. 2007;4(1):e40.

Warne V. Rewarding reviewers- sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained. Learned Pub. 2016;29(1):41–50.

COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Available: http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers . Accessed 10 Aug, 2016.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank Dr Mona Shehata (Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada) for discussions, Ms Sarah Frost for critical reading, reviewers of this manuscript for many constructive comments, and reviewers of past publications for feedback which also contributed towards the development of this manuscript.

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

Authors’ contributions.

JAB drafted, wrote and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The author declares that she has no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Ethics approval and consent to participate, author information, authors and affiliations.

Molecular Oncology Laboratory, Children’s Cancer Research Unit, Kids Research Institute, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Locked Bag 4001, Westmead, 2145, NSW, Australia

Jennifer A. Byrne

The University of Sydney Discipline of Child and Adolescent Health, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Locked Bag 4001, Westmead, 2145, NSW, Australia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer A. Byrne .

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.

Byrne, J.A. Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews. Res Integr Peer Rev 1 , 12 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0019-2

Download citation

Received : 17 June 2016

Accepted : 05 August 2016

Published : 04 September 2016

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0019-2

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

• Peer review
• Narrative literature review

Research Integrity and Peer Review

ISSN: 2058-8615

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

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Perspective
• Published: 12 October 2020

Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them

• Neal R. Haddaway   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3902-2234 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Alison Bethel 4 ,
• Lynn V. Dicks 5 , 6 ,
• Julia Koricheva   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9033-0171 7 ,
• Biljana Macura   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4253-1390 2 ,
• Gillian Petrokofsky 8 ,
• Andrew S. Pullin 9 ,
• Sini Savilaakso   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8514-8105 10 , 11 &
• Gavin B. Stewart   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5684-1544 12  

Nature Ecology & Evolution volume  4 ,  pages 1582–1589 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

11k Accesses

81 Citations

387 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Conservation biology
• Environmental impact

An Author Correction to this article was published on 19 October 2020

This article has been updated

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Challenges and recommendations on the conduct of systematic reviews of observational epidemiologic studies in environmental and occupational health

Whitney D. Arroyave, Suril S. Mehta, … Ruth M. Lunn

Insights from a cross-sector review on how to conceptualise the quality of use of research evidence

Mark Rickinson, Connie Cirkony, … Annette Boaz

The past, present and future of Registered Reports

Christopher D. Chambers & Loukia Tzavella

Change history

19 october 2020.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Grant, M. J. & Booth, A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr. J. 26 , 91–108 (2009).

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Haddaway, N. R. & Macura, B. The role of reporting standards in producing robust literature reviews. Nat. Clim. Change 8 , 444–447 (2018).

Google Scholar  

Pullin, A. S. & Knight, T. M. Science informing policy–a health warning for the environment. Environ. Evid. 1 , 15 (2012).

Haddaway, N., Woodcock, P., Macura, B. & Collins, A. Making literature reviews more reliable through application of lessons from systematic reviews. Conserv. Biol. 29 , 1596–1605 (2015).

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Pullin, A., Frampton, G., Livoreil, B. & Petrokofsky, G. Guidelines and Standards for Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management (Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, 2018).

White, H. The twenty-first century experimenting society: the four waves of the evidence revolution. Palgrave Commun. 5 , 47 (2019).

O’Leary, B. C. et al. The reliability of evidence review methodology in environmental science and conservation. Environ. Sci. Policy 64 , 75–82 (2016).

Woodcock, P., Pullin, A. S. & Kaiser, M. J. Evaluating and improving the reliability of evidence syntheses in conservation and environmental science: a methodology. Biol. Conserv. 176 , 54–62 (2014).

Campbell Systematic Reviews: Policies and Guidelines (Campbell Collaboration, 2014).

Higgins, J. P. et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (John Wiley & Sons, 2019).

Shea, B. J. et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 358 , j4008 (2017).

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Haddaway, N. R., Land, M. & Macura, B. “A little learning is a dangerous thing”: a call for better understanding of the term ‘systematic review’. Environ. Int. 99 , 356–360 (2017).

Freeman, R. E. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2010).

Haddaway, N. R. et al. A framework for stakeholder engagement during systematic reviews and maps in environmental management. Environ. Evid. 6 , 11 (2017).

Land, M., Macura, B., Bernes, C. & Johansson, S. A five-step approach for stakeholder engagement in prioritisation and planning of environmental evidence syntheses. Environ. Evid. 6 , 25 (2017).

Oliver, S. & Dickson, K. Policy-relevant systematic reviews to strengthen health systems: models and mechanisms to support their production. Evid. Policy 12 , 235–259 (2016).

Savilaakso, S. et al. Systematic review of effects on biodiversity from oil palm production. Environ. Evid. 3 , 4 (2014).

Savilaakso, S., Laumonier, Y., Guariguata, M. R. & Nasi, R. Does production of oil palm, soybean, or jatropha change biodiversity and ecosystem functions in tropical forests. Environ. Evid. 2 , 17 (2013).

Haddaway, N. R. & Crowe, S. Experiences and lessons in stakeholder engagement in environmental evidence synthesis: a truly special series. Environ. Evid. 7 , 11 (2018).

Sánchez-Bayo, F. & Wyckhuys, K. A. Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: a review of its drivers. Biol. Conserv. 232 , 8–27 (2019).

Agarwala, M. & Ginsberg, J. R. Untangling outcomes of de jure and de facto community-based management of natural resources. Conserv. Biol. 31 , 1232–1246 (2017).

Gurevitch, J., Curtis, P. S. & Jones, M. H. Meta-analysis in ecology. Adv. Ecol. Res. 32 , 199–247 (2001).

CAS   Google Scholar  

Haddaway, N. R., Macura, B., Whaley, P. & Pullin, A. S. ROSES RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses: pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps. Environ. Evid. 7 , 7 (2018).

Lwasa, S. et al. A meta-analysis of urban and peri-urban agriculture and forestry in mediating climate change. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 13 , 68–73 (2015).

Pacifici, M. et al. Species’ traits influenced their response to recent climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 7 , 205–208 (2017).

Owen-Smith, N. Ramifying effects of the risk of predation on African multi-predator, multi-prey large-mammal assemblages and the conservation implications. Biol. Conserv. 232 , 51–58 (2019).

Prugh, L. R. et al. Designing studies of predation risk for improved inference in carnivore-ungulate systems. Biol. Conserv. 232 , 194–207 (2019).

Li, Y. et al. Effects of biochar application in forest ecosystems on soil properties and greenhouse gas emissions: a review. J. Soil Sediment. 18 , 546–563 (2018).

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J. & Altman, D. G., The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 6 , e1000097 (2009).

Bernes, C. et al. What is the influence of a reduction of planktivorous and benthivorous fish on water quality in temperate eutrophic lakes? A systematic review. Environ. Evid. 4 , 7 (2015).

McDonagh, M., Peterson, K., Raina, P., Chang, S. & Shekelle, P. Avoiding bias in selecting studies. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews [Internet] (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2013).

Burivalova, Z., Hua, F., Koh, L. P., Garcia, C. & Putz, F. A critical comparison of conventional, certified, and community management of tropical forests for timber in terms of environmental, economic, and social variables. Conserv. Lett. 10 , 4–14 (2017).

Min-Venditti, A. A., Moore, G. W. & Fleischman, F. What policies improve forest cover? A systematic review of research from Mesoamerica. Glob. Environ. Change 47 , 21–27 (2017).

Bramer, W. M., Giustini, D. & Kramer, B. M. R. Comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of searches for 120 systematic reviews in Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar: a prospective study. Syst. Rev. 5 , 39 (2016).

Bramer, W. M., Giustini, D., Kramer, B. M. R. & Anderson, P. F. The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2 , 115 (2013).

Gusenbauer, M. & Haddaway, N. R. Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Res. Synth. Methods 11 , 181–217 (2020).

Livoreil, B. et al. Systematic searching for environmental evidence using multiple tools and sources. Environ. Evid. 6 , 23 (2017).

Mlinarić, A., Horvat, M. & Šupak Smolčić, V. Dealing with the positive publication bias: why you should really publish your negative results. Biochem. Med. 27 , 447–452 (2017).

Lin, L. & Chu, H. Quantifying publication bias in meta‐analysis. Biometrics 74 , 785–794 (2018).

Haddaway, N. R. & Bayliss, H. R. Shades of grey: two forms of grey literature important for reviews in conservation. Biol. Conserv. 191 , 827–829 (2015).

Viechtbauer, W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J. Stat. Softw. 36 , 1–48 (2010).

Bilotta, G. S., Milner, A. M. & Boyd, I. On the use of systematic reviews to inform environmental policies. Environ. Sci. Policy 42 , 67–77 (2014).

Englund, G., Sarnelle, O. & Cooper, S. D. The importance of data‐selection criteria: meta‐analyses of stream predation experiments. Ecology 80 , 1132–1141 (1999).

Burivalova, Z., Şekercioğlu, Ç. H. & Koh, L. P. Thresholds of logging intensity to maintain tropical forest biodiversity. Curr. Biol. 24 , 1893–1898 (2014).

Bicknell, J. E., Struebig, M. J., Edwards, D. P. & Davies, Z. G. Improved timber harvest techniques maintain biodiversity in tropical forests. Curr. Biol. 24 , R1119–R1120 (2014).

Damette, O. & Delacote, P. Unsustainable timber harvesting, deforestation and the role of certification. Ecol. Econ. 70 , 1211–1219 (2011).

Blomley, T. et al. Seeing the wood for the trees: an assessment of the impact of participatory forest management on forest condition in Tanzania. Oryx 42 , 380–391 (2008).

Haddaway, N. R. et al. How does tillage intensity affect soil organic carbon? A systematic review. Environ. Evid. 6 , 30 (2017).

Higgins, J. P. et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343 , d5928 (2011).

Stewart, G. Meta-analysis in applied ecology. Biol. Lett. 6 , 78–81 (2010).

Koricheva, J. & Gurevitch, J. Uses and misuses of meta‐analysis in plant ecology. J. Ecol. 102 , 828–844 (2014).

Vetter, D., Ruecker, G. & Storch, I. Meta‐analysis: a need for well‐defined usage in ecology and conservation biology. Ecosphere 4 , 1–24 (2013).

Stewart, G. B. & Schmid, C. H. Lessons from meta-analysis in ecology and evolution: the need for trans-disciplinary evidence synthesis methodologies. Res. Synth. Methods 6 , 109–110 (2015).

Macura, B. et al. Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence for environmental policy and management: an overview of different methodological options. Environ. Evid. 8 , 24 (2019).

Koricheva, J. & Gurevitch, J. in Handbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution (eds Koricheva, J. et al.) Ch. 1 (Princeton Scholarship Online, 2013).

Britt, M., Haworth, S. E., Johnson, J. B., Martchenko, D. & Shafer, A. B. The importance of non-academic coauthors in bridging the conservation genetics gap. Biol. Conserv. 218 , 118–123 (2018).

Graham, L., Gaulton, R., Gerard, F. & Staley, J. T. The influence of hedgerow structural condition on wildlife habitat provision in farmed landscapes. Biol. Conserv. 220 , 122–131 (2018).

Delaquis, E., de Haan, S. & Wyckhuys, K. A. On-farm diversity offsets environmental pressures in tropical agro-ecosystems: a synthetic review for cassava-based systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 251 , 226–235 (2018).

Popay, J. et al. Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews: A Product from the ESRC Methods Programme Version 1 (Lancaster Univ., 2006).

Pullin, A. S. et al. Human well-being impacts of terrestrial protected areas. Environ. Evid. 2 , 19 (2013).

Waffenschmidt, S., Knelangen, M., Sieben, W., Bühn, S. & Pieper, D. Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 19 , 132 (2019).

Rallo, A. & García-Arberas, L. Differences in abiotic water conditions between fluvial reaches and crayfish fauna in some northern rivers of the Iberian Peninsula. Aquat. Living Resour. 15 , 119–128 (2002).

Glasziou, P. & Chalmers, I. Research waste is still a scandal—an essay by Paul Glasziou and Iain Chalmers. BMJ 363 , k4645 (2018).

Haddaway, N. R. Open Synthesis: on the need for evidence synthesis to embrace Open Science. Environ. Evid. 7 , 26 (2018).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank C. Shortall from Rothamstead Research for useful discussions on the topic.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Mercator Research Institute on Climate Change and Global Commons, Berlin, Germany

Neal R. Haddaway

Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

Neal R. Haddaway & Biljana Macura

Africa Centre for Evidence, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

College of Medicine and Health, Exeter University, Exeter, UK

Alison Bethel

Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Lynn V. Dicks

School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

Department of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, UK

Julia Koricheva

Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Gillian Petrokofsky

Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, UK Centre, School of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK

• Andrew S. Pullin

Liljus ltd, London, UK

Sini Savilaakso

Department of Forest Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

Evidence Synthesis Lab, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, University of Newcastle, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK

Gavin B. Stewart

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

N.R.H. developed the manuscript idea and a first draft. All authors contributed to examples and edited the text. All authors have read and approve of the final submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neal R. Haddaway .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

S.S. is a co-founder of Liljus ltd, a firm that provides research services in sustainable finance as well as forest conservation and management. The other authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary table.

Examples of literature reviews and common problems identified.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Haddaway, N.R., Bethel, A., Dicks, L.V. et al. Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them. Nat Ecol Evol 4 , 1582–1589 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01295-x

Download citation

Received : 24 March 2020

Accepted : 31 July 2020

Published : 12 October 2020

Issue Date : December 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01295-x

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

This article is cited by

A review of the necessity of a multi-layer land-use planning.

• Hashem Dadashpoor
• Leyla Ghasempour

Landscape and Ecological Engineering (2024)

Synthesizing the relationships between environmental DNA concentration and freshwater macrophyte abundance: a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Toshiaki S. Jo

Hydrobiologia (2024)

A Systematic Review of the Effects of Multi-purpose Forest Management Practices on the Breeding Success of Forest Birds

• João M. Cordeiro Pereira
• Grzegorz Mikusiński
• Ilse Storch

Current Forestry Reports (2024)

Parasitism in viviparous vertebrates: an overview

• Juan J. Palacios-Marquez
• Palestina Guevara-Fiore

Parasitology Research (2024)

Environmental evidence in action: on the science and practice of evidence synthesis and evidence-based decision-making

• Steven J. Cooke
• Carly N. Cook

Environmental Evidence (2023)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Systematic Reviews

Automate every stage of your literature review to produce evidence-based research faster and more accurately.

Systematic reviews are considered credible sources since they are comprehensive, reproducible, and precise in stating the outcomes. The type of review system used and the approach taken depend on the goals and objectives of the research. To choose the best-suited review system, researchers must be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of each one.

Let us now look at the strengths and limitations of systematic reviews.

Strengths Of Systematic Reviews

Systematic reviews have become increasingly popular owing to their transparency, accuracy, replicability, and reduced risk of bias. Some of the main benefits of systematic reviews are;

Specificity

Researchers can answer specific research questions of high importance. For example, the efficacy of a particular drug in the treatment of an illness.

Explicit Methodology

A systematic review requires rigorous planning. Each stage of the review is predefined to the last detail. The research question is formulated using the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, and outcome) approach. A strict eligibility criteria is then established for inclusion and exclusion criteria for selecting the primary studies for the review. Every stage of the systematic review methodology is pre-specified to the last detail and made publicly available, even before starting the review process. This makes all the stages in the methodology transparent and reproducible.

Reliable And Accurate Results

The results of a systematic review are either analyzed qualitatively and presented as a textual narrative or quantitatively using statistical methods such as meta-analyses and numeric effect estimates. The quality of evidence or the confidence in effect estimates is calculated using the standardized GRADE approach.

Comprehensive And Exhaustive

A systematic review involves a thorough search of all the available data on a certain topic. It is exhaustive and considers every bit of evidence in synthesizing the outcome. Primary sources for the review are collected from databases and multiple sources, such as blogs from pharmaceutical companies, unpublished research directly from researchers, government reports, and conference proceedings. These are referred to as grey literature. The search criteria and keywords used in sourcing are specific and predefined.

Reproducible

Learn more about distillersr.

(Article continues below)

Weaknesses Of Systematic Reviews

Although systematic reviews are robust tools in scientific research they are not immune to errors. They can be misleading, or even harmful if the data is inappropriately handled or if they are biased. Some of the limitations of systematic reviews include:

Mass Production

Due to the popularity systematic reviews have gained, they tend to be used more than required. The growth rate of systematic reviews has outpaced the growth rate of studies overall. This results in redundancy. For example, a survey published in the BMJ[1], included 73 randomly selected meta-analyses published in 2010 found that for two-thirds of these studies, there was at least one, and sometimes as many as 13, additional meta-analyses published on the same topic by early 2013.

Risk of Bias

Although systematic reviews have many advantages, they are also more susceptible to certain types of biases. A bias is a systematic or methodological error that causes misrepresentation of the study outcomes. As bias can appear at any stage, authors should be aware of the specific risks at each stage of the review process. Most of the known errors in systematic reviews arise in the selection and publication stages. The eligibility criterion in a systematic review helps to avoid selection bias. Poor study design and execution can also result in a biased outcome. It’s important to learn about the types of bias in systematic reviews .

Expressing Strong Opinions by Stealth

Selective outcome reporting is a major threat to a systematic review. The author or reviewer may decide to only report a selection of the statistically significant outcomes that suit his interest. The possibility of unfair or misleading interpretation of evidence outcomes in a systematic review can have serious implications.

Like any review system, systematic reviews have their advantages and disadvantages. Understanding them is essential to making a choice of which review system to use.

Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies. BMJ 2013; 347:f4501

3 Reasons to Connect

Systematic reviews: the good, the bad, and the ugly

Affiliation.

• 1 Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, McMaster University Health Science Centre, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
• PMID: 19417748
• DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2009.118

Systematic reviews systematically evaluate and summarize current knowledge and have many advantages over narrative reviews. Meta-analyses provide a more reliable and enhanced precision of effect estimate than do individual studies. Systematic reviews are invaluable for defining the methods used in subsequent studies, but, as retrospective research projects, they are subject to bias. Rigorous research methods are essential, and the quality depends on the extent to which scientific review methods are used. Systematic reviews can be misleading, unhelpful, or even harmful when data are inappropriately handled; meta-analyses can be misused when the difference between a patient seen in the clinic and those included in the meta-analysis is not considered. Furthermore, systematic reviews cannot answer all clinically relevant questions, and their conclusions may be difficult to incorporate into practice. They should be reviewed on an ongoing basis. As clinicians, we need proper methodological training to perform good systematic reviews and must ask the appropriate questions before we can properly interpret such a review and apply its conclusions to our patients. This paper aims to assist in the reading of a systematic review.

Publication types

• Comparative Study
• Systematic Review
• Evidence-Based Medicine / standards*
• Evidence-Based Medicine / trends
• Gastroenterology*
• Meta-Analysis as Topic*
• Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
• Reproducibility of Results
• Research Design
• Review Literature as Topic*
• Sensitivity and Specificity

Empowering education development through AIGC: A systematic literature review

• Published: 29 February 2024

Cite this article

• Xiaojiao Chen 1 ,
• Zhebing Hu 2 &
• Chengliang Wang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2208-3508 3  

648 Accesses

Explore all metrics

As an exemplary representative of AIGC products, ChatGPT has ushered in new possibilities for the field of education. Leveraging its robust text generation and comprehension capabilities, it has had a revolutionary impact on pedagogy, learning experiences, personalized education and other aspects. However, to date, there has been no comprehensive review of AIGC technology’s application in education. In light of this gap, this study employs a systematic literature review and selects 134 relevant publications on AIGC’s educational application from 4 databases: EBSCO, EI Compendex, Scopus, and Web of Science. The study aims to explore the macro development status and future trends in AIGC’s educational application. The following findings emerge: 1) In the AIGC’s educational application field, the United States is the most active country. Theoretical research dominates the research types in this domain; 2) Research on AIGC’s educational application is primarily published in journals and academic conferences in the fields of educational technology and medicine; 3) Research topics primarily focus on five themes: AIGC technology performance assessment, AIGC technology instructional application, AIGC technology enhancing learning outcomes, AIGC technology educational application’s Advantages and Disadvantages analysis, and AIGC technology educational application prospects. 4) Through Grounded Theory, the study delves into the core advantages and potential risks of AIGC’s educational application, deconstructing the scenarios and logic of AIGC’s educational application. 5) Based on a review of existing literature, the study provides valuable future agendas from both theoretical and practical application perspectives. Discussing the future research agenda contributes to clarifying key issues related to the integration of AI and education, promoting more intelligent, effective, and sustainable educational methods and tools, which is of great significance for advancing innovation and development in the field of education.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Students’ voices on generative AI: perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education

Cecilia Ka Yuk Chan & Wenjie Hu

The AI generation gap: Are Gen Z students more interested in adopting generative AI such as ChatGPT in teaching and learning than their Gen X and millennial generation teachers?

Cecilia Ka Yuk Chan & Katherine K. W. Lee

How should we change teaching and assessment in response to increasingly powerful generative Artificial Intelligence? Outcomes of the ChatGPT teacher survey

Matt Bower, Jodie Torrington, … Mark Alfano

Data availability

The datasets (Coding results) generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abdelghani, R., Wang, Y. H., Yuan, X., Wang, T., Lucas, P., Sauzéon, H., & Oudeyer, P. Y. (2023). Gpt-3-driven pedagogical agents to train children’s curious question-asking skills. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education , 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-023-00340-7

Abdulai, A. F., & Hung, L. (2023). Will ChatGPT undermine ethical values in nursing education, research, and practice. Nursing Inquiry . e12556–e12556. https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12556

Ahmed, S. K. (2023). The Impact of ChatGPT on the Nursing Profession: Revolutionizing Patient Care and Education. Annals of Biomedical Engineering , 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-023-03262-6

Albeshri, A., & Thayananthan, V. (2018). Analytical techniques for decision making on information security for big data breaches. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 17 (02), 527–545. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622017500432

Article   Google Scholar  

Allen, B., Dreyer, K., Stibolt Jr, R., Agarwal, S., Coombs, L., Treml, C., ... & Wald, C. (2021). Evaluation and real-world performance monitoring of artificial intelligence models in clinical practice: Try it, buy it, check it. Journal of the American College of Radiology , 18 (11), 1489–1496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2021.08.022

Alnaqbi, N. M., & Fouda, W. (2023). Exploring the role of ChatGPT and social media in enhancing student evaluation of teaching styles in higher education using neutrosophic sets. International Journal of Neutrosophic Science, 20 (4), 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12556

Alqahtani, T., Badreldin, H. A., Alrashed, M., Alshaya, A. I., Alghamdi, S. S., bin Saleh, K., ... & Albekairy, A. M. (2023). The emergent role of artificial intelligence, natural learning processing, and large language models in higher education and research. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2023.05.016

Ancillai, C., Sabatini, A., Gatti, M., & Perna, A. (2023). Digital technology and business model innovation: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 188 , 122307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122307

Banić, B., Konecki, M., & Konecki, M. (2023, May). Pair Programming Education Aided by ChatGPT. In 2023 46th MIPRO ICT and Electronics Convention (MIPRO) (pp. 911–915). IEEE.

Busch, F., Adams, L. C., & Bressem, K. K. (2023). Biomedical ethical aspects towards the implementation of artificial intelligence in medical education. Medical Science Educator., 33 , 1007–1012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-023-01815-x

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Chang, C.-Y., Kuo, S.-Y., & Hwang, G.-H. (2022). Chatbot-facilitated nursing education: Incorporating a knowledge-based Chatbot system into a nursing training program. Educational Technology & Society , 25 (1), 15–27. Retrieved December 19, 2023, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/48647027

Charmaz, K., & Thornberg, R. (2021). The pursuit of quality in grounded theory. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18 (3), 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1780357

Choi, E. P. H., Lee, J. J., Ho, M. H., Kwok, J. Y. Y., & Lok, K. Y. W. (2023). Chatting or cheating? The impacts of ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence language models on nurse education. Nurse Education Today, 125 , 105796–105796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2023.105796

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Cooper, G. (2023). Examining science education in chatgpt: An exploratory study of generative artificial intelligence. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 32 (3), 444–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-023-10039-y

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Cross, J., Robinson, R., Devaraju, S., Vaughans, A., Hood, R., Kayalackakom, T., ... & Robinson, R. E. (2023). Transforming medical education: Assessing the integration of ChatGPT into faculty workflows at a Caribbean medical school. Cureus , 15 (7). https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.41399

Currie, G. M. (2023, May). Academic integrity and artificial intelligence: Is ChatGPT hype, hero or heresy? In Seminars in Nuclear Medicine. WB Saunders. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2023.04.008

Das, D., Kumar, N., Longjam, L. A., Sinha, R., Roy, A. D., Mondal, H., & Gupta, P. (2023). Assessing the capability of ChatGPT in answering first-and second-order knowledge questions on microbiology as per competency-based medical education curriculum. Cureus , 15 (3). https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.36034

Deacon, B., Laufer, M., & Schäfer, L. O. (2023). Infusing educational technologies in the heart of the university-a systematic literature review from an organisational perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54 (2), 441–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13277

Deeley, S. J. (2018). Using technology to facilitate effective assessment for learning and feedback in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43 (3), 439–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1356906

Deng, X., & Yu, Z. (2023). A meta-analysis and systematic review of the effect of chatbot technology use in sustainable education. Sustainability, 15 (4), 2940. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15042940

Diekemper, R. L., Ireland, B. K., & Merz, L. R. (2015). Development of the documentation and appraisal review tool for systematic reviews. World Journal of Meta-Analysis, 3 (3), 142–150. https://doi.org/10.13105/wjma.v3.i3.142

Engel, A., & Coll, C. (2022). Hybrid teaching and learning environments to promote personalized learning. RIED-Revista Iberoamericana de Educacion a Distancia , 225–242. https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.25.1.31489

Escotet, M. Á. (2023). The optimistic future of Artificial Intelligence in higher education. Prospects, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-023-09642-z

Esplugas, M. (2023). The use of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance academic communication, education and research: A balanced approach. Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume) , 48 (8), 819–822.  https://doi.org/10.1177/17531934231185746

Extance, A. (2023). ChatGPT has entered the classroom: How LLMs could transform education. Nature, 623 , 474–477. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03507-3

Article   CAS   PubMed   ADS   Google Scholar  

Foroughi, B., Senali, M. G., Iranmanesh, M., Khanfar, A., Ghobakhloo, M., Annamalai, N., & Naghmeh-Abbaspour, B. (2023). Determinants of Intention to Use ChatGPT for Educational Purposes: Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction , 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2226495

Gaur, A., & Kumar, M. (2018). A systematic approach to conducting review studies: An assessment of content analysis in 25 years of IB research. Journal of World Business, 53 (2), 280–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2017.11.003

Ghorbani, M., Bahaghighat, M., Xin, Q., & Özen, F. (2020). ConvLSTMConv network: A deep learning approach for sentiment analysis in cloud computing. Journal of Cloud Computing, 9 (1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13677-020-00162-1

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (2017). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . Routledge https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2017.11.003

Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (Eds.). (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews . Sage https://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2014.57.1.49

Grant, N., & Metz, C. (2022). A new chat bot is a ‘code red’ for Google's search business, The New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/21/technology/ai-chatgpt-google-search.html . Accessed 19 Dec 2023

Hadi, M. S., & Junor, R. S. (2022). Speaking to devices: Can we use Google assistant to Foster Students' speaking skills? Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 10 (4), 570–578. https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v10i4.5808

Heng, J. J., Teo, D. B., & Tan, L. F. (2023). The impact of Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) on medical education. Postgraduate Medical Journal , qgad058. https://doi.org/10.1093/postmj/qgad058

Ho, W., & Lee, D. (2023). Enhancing engineering education in the roblox metaverse: Utilizing chatgpt for game development for electrical machine course. International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering & Information Technology , 13 (3). https://doi.org/10.18517/ijaseit.13.3.18458

Holmes, W., & Kay, J. (2023, June). AI in education. Coming of age? The community voice. In International conference on artificial intelligence in education (pp. 85–90). Springer Nature Switzerland.

Google Scholar  

Hsu, Y. C., & Ching, Y. H. (2023). Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education, Part One: the Dynamic Frontier. TechTrends , 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-023-00863-9

Hwang, G. J., & Chang, C. Y. (2021). A review of opportunities and challenges of chatbots in education. Interactive Learning Environments , 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1952615

Jalil, S., Rafi, S., LaToza, T. D., Moran, K., & Lam, W. (2023, April). Chatgpt and software testing education: Promises & perils. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops (ICSTW) (pp. 4130–4137). IEEE.

Jeon, J., & Lee, S. (2023). Large language models in education: A focus on the complementary relationship between human teachers and ChatGPT. Education and Information Technologies , 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11834-1

Jing, Y., Wang, C., Chen, Y., Wang, H., Yu, T., & Shadiev, R. (2023). Bibliometric mapping techniques in educational technology research: A systematic literature review. Education and Information Technologies , 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12178-6

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33 (7), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014

Karabacak, M., Ozkara, B. B., Margetis, K., Wintermark, M., & Bisdas, S. (2023). The advent of generative language models in medical education. JMIR Medical Education, 9 , e48163. https://doi.org/10.2196/48163

Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., … Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103 , 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274

Kepuska, V., & Bohouta, G. (2018, January). Next-generation of virtual personal assistants (microsoft cortana, apple siri, amazon alexa and google home). In 2018 IEEE 8th annual computing and communication workshop and conference (CCWC) (pp. 99–103). IEEE.

Kerneža, M. (2023). Fundamental And Basic Cognitive Skills Required For Teachers To Effectively Use Chatbots In Education. In Science And Technology Education: New Developments And Innovations (pp. 99–110). Scientia Socialis, UAB.

Kılıçkaya, F. (2020). Using a chatbot, Replika, to practice writing through conversations in L2 English: A Case study. In New Technological applications for foreign and second language learning and teaching (pp. 221–238). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-2591-3.ch011

Killian, C. M., Marttinen, R., Howley, D., Sargent, J., & Jones, E. M. (2023). “Knock, Knock... Who’s There?” ChatGPT and Artificial Intelligence-Powered Large Language Models: Reflections on Potential Impacts Within Health and Physical Education Teacher Education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education , 1 (aop), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2023-0058

Kohnke, L. (2022). A pedagogical Chatbot: A supplemental language learning Tool. RELC Journal , 00336882211067054. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882211067054

Kung, T. H., Cheatham, M., Medenilla, A., Sillos, C., De Leon, L., Elepaño, C., ... & Tseng, V. (2023). Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: Potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models. PLoS Digital Health, 2 (2), e0000198. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000198

Lee, D., & Yeo, S. (2022). Developing an AI-based chatbot for practicing responsive teaching in mathematics. Computers & Education, 191 , 104646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104646

Lee, L. W., Dabirian, A., McCarthy, I. P., & Kietzmann, J. (2020). Making sense of text: Artificial intelligence-enabled content analysis. European Journal of Marketing, 54 (3), 615–644. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0219

Li, L., Ma, Z., Fan, L., Lee, S., Yu, H., & Hemphill, L. (2023). ChatGPT in education: A discourse analysis of worries and concerns on social media. arXiv preprint arXiv :2305.02201. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.02201

Lim, W. M., Gunasekara, A., Pallant, J. L., Pallant, J. I., & Pechenkina, E. (2023). Generative AI and the future of education: Ragnarök or reformation? A paradoxical perspective from management educators. The International Journal of Management Education, 21 (2), 100790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100790

Lin, T. J., & Lan, Y. J. (2015). Language learning in virtual reality environments: Past, present, and future. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18 (4), 486–497. Retrieved December 19, 2023, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.18.4.486

Lodge, J. M., Thompson, K., & Corrin, L. (2023). Mapping out a research agenda for generative artificial intelligence in tertiary education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 39 (1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.8695

Luo, H., Li, G., Feng, Q., Yang, Y., & Zuo, M. (2021). Virtual reality in K-12 and higher education: A systematic review of the literature from 2000 to 2019. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37 (3), 887–901. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12538

Mariani, M. M., Hashemi, N., & Wirtz, J. (2023). Artificial intelligence empowered conversational agents: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 161 , 113838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113838

Mohamed, A. M. (2023). Exploring the potential of an AI-based Chatbot (ChatGPT) in enhancing English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teaching: perceptions of EFL Faculty Members. Education and Information Technologies, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11917-z

Mohammad, B., Supti, T., Alzubaidi, M., Shah, H., Alam, T., Shah, Z., & Househ, M. (2023). The pros and cons of using ChatGPT in medical education: A scoping review. Student Health Technology Information, 305 , 644–647. https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI230580

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151 , 264–269. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135

Mokmin, N. A. M., & Ibrahim, N. A. (2021). The evaluation of chatbot as a tool for health literacy education among undergraduate students. Education and Information Technologies, 26 (5), 6033–6049. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10542-y

Patel, N., Nagpal, P., Shah, T., Sharma, A., Malvi, S., & Lomas, D. (2023). Improving mathematics assessment readability: Do large language models help? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39 (3), 804–822. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12776

Paul, J., Lim, W. M., O’Cass, A., Hao, A. W., & Bresciani, S. (2021). Scientific procedures and rationales for systematic literature reviews (SPAR-4-SLR). International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45 (4), O1–O16. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12695

Pentina, I., Xie, T., Hancock, T., & Bailey, A. (2023). Consumer–machine relationships in the age of artificial intelligence: Systematic literature review and research directions. Psychology & Marketing, 40 (8), 1593–1614. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21853

Pereira, R., Reis, A., Barroso, J., Sousa, J., & Pinto, T. (2022). Virtual assistants applications in education. In International conference on technology and innovation in learning, teaching and education (pp. 468–480). Springer Nature Switzerland.

Pinto, A. S., Abreu, A., Costa, E., & Paiva, J. (2023). How Machine Learning (ML) is transforming higher education: A systematic literature review. Journal of Information Systems Engineering and Management, 8 (2). https://doi.org/10.55267/iadt.07.13227

Prikshat, V., Islam, M., Patel, P., Malik, A., Budhwar, P., & Gupta, S. (2023). AI-augmented HRM: Literature review and a proposed multilevel framework for future research. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 193 , 122645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122645

Radianti, J., Majchrzak, T. A., Fromm, J., & Wohlgenannt, I. (2020). A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers & Education, 147 , 103778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103778

Rahimzadeh, V., Kostick-Quenet, K., Blumenthal Barby, J., & McGuire, A. L. (2023). Ethics education for healthcare professionals in the era of chatGPT and other large language models: Do we still need it?. The American Journal of Bioethics , 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2023.2233358

Rahman, M. M., & Watanobe, Y. (2023). ChatGPT for education and research: Opportunities, threats, and strategies. Applied Sciences, 13 (9), 5783. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13095783

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Rasul, T., Nair, S., Kalendra, D., Robin, M., de Oliveira Santini, F., Ladeira, W. J., ... & Heathcote, L. (2023). The role of ChatGPT in higher education: Benefits, challenges, and future research directions. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6 (1). https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1

Sallam, M. (2023a). ChatGPT utility in healthcare education, research, and practice: systematic review on the promising perspectives and valid concerns. In Healthcare (Vol. 11, No. 6, p. 887). MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11060887

Sallam, M. (2023b). ChatGPT utility in healthcare education, research, and practice: Systematic review on the promising perspectives and valid concerns. Healthcare, 11 (6), 887. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11060887

Sánchez-Ruiz, L. M., Moll-López, S., Nuñez-Pérez, A., Moraño-Fernández, J. A., & Vega-Fleitas, E. (2023). ChatGPT challenges blended learning methodologies in engineering education: A case study in mathematics. Applied Sciences, 13 (10), 6039. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13106039

Sandu, N., & Gide, E. (2019). Adoption of AI-Chatbots to enhance student learning experience in higher education in India. In 2019 18th International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET) (pp. 1–5). IEEE.

Schmulian, A., & Coetzee, S. A. (2019). Students’ experience of team assessment with immediate feedback in a large accounting class. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44 (4), 516–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1522295

Seetharaman, R. (2023). Revolutionizing medical education: Can ChatGPT boost subjective learning and expression? Journal of Medical Systems, 47 (1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-023-01957-w

Sharma, M., & Sharma, S. (2023). A holistic approach to remote patient monitoring, fueled by ChatGPT and Metaverse technology: The future of nursing education. Nurse Education Today, 131 , 105972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2023.105972

Shlonsky, A., Noonan, E., Littell, J. H., & Montgomery, P. (2011). The role of systematic reviews and the Campbell collaboration in the realization of evidence-informed practice. Clinical Social Work Journal, 39 , 362–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-010-0307-0

Shoja, M. M., Van de Ridder, J. M., & Rajput, V. (2023). The emerging role of generative artificial intelligence in medical education, research, and practice. Cureus, 15 (6), e40883. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.40883

Siegle, D. (2023). A role for ChatGPT and AI in gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 46 (3), 211–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/10762175231168443

Smith, A., Hachen, S., Schleifer, R., Bhugra, D., Buadze, A., & Liebrenz, M. (2023). Old dog, new tricks? Exploring the potential functionalities of ChatGPT in supporting educational methods in social psychiatry. International Journal of Social Psychiatry . https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764023117845

Strzelecki, A. (2023). To use or not to use ChatGPT in higher education? A study of students’ acceptance and use of technology. Interactive Learning Environments , 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2209881

Tam, W., Huynh, T., Tang, A., Luong, S., Khatri, Y., & Zhou, W. (2023). Nursing education in the age of artificial intelligence powered Chatbots (AI-Chatbots): Are we ready yet? Nurse Education Today, 129 , 105917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2023.105917

Teel, Z. A., Wang, T., & Lund, B. (2023). ChatGPT conundrums: Probing plagiarism and parroting problems in higher education practices. College & Research Libraries News, 84 (6), 205. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.84.6.205

Tlili, A., Shehata, B., Adarkwah, M. A., Bozkurt, A., Hickey, D. T., Huang, R., & Agyemang, B. (2023). What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education. Smart Learning Environments, 10 (1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x

Tsang, R. (2023). Practical applications of ChatGPT in undergraduate medical education. Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development , 10 . https://doi.org/10.1177/23821205231178449

Yan, D. (2023). Impact of ChatGPT on learners in a L2 writing practicum: An exploratory investigation. Education and Information Technologies, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11742-4

Zhang, R., Zou, D., & Cheng, G. (2023a). A review of chatbot-assisted learning: pedagogical approaches, implementations, factors leading to effectiveness, theories, and future directions. Interactive Learning Environments , 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2202704

Zhang, S., Shan, C., Lee, J. S. Y., Che, S., & Kim, J. H. (2023b). Effect of chatbot-assisted language learning: A meta-analysis. Education and Information Technologies , 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11805-6

Zhu, C., Sun, M., Luo, J., Li, T., & Wang, M. (2023). How to harness the potential of ChatGPT in education? Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 15 (2), 133. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2023.15.008

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Educational Science and Technology, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, China

Xiaojiao Chen

College of Foreign Languages, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, China

Department of Education Information Technology, Faculty of Education, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China

Chengliang Wang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chengliang Wang .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

During the research, the authors indicate that no commercial or financial ties that may be regarded a possible conflict of interest existed.

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

Chen, X., Hu, Z. & Wang, C. Empowering education development through AIGC: A systematic literature review. Educ Inf Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12549-7

Download citation

Received : 19 October 2023

Accepted : 05 February 2024

Published : 29 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12549-7

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

• Artificial intelligence generated content
• Artificial intelligence
• Systematic literature review
• Educational technology
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Become Involved |
• Give to the Library |
• Staff Directory |
• UNF Library
• Thomas G. Carpenter Library

Conducting a Literature Review

Benefits of conducting a literature review.

• Steps in Conducting a Literature Review
• Summary of the Process
• Additional Resources
• Literature Review Tutorial by American University Library
• The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It by University of Toronto
• Write a Literature Review by UC Santa Cruz University Library

While there might be many reasons for conducting a literature review, following are four key outcomes of doing the review.

Assessment of the current state of research on a topic . This is probably the most obvious value of the literature review. Once a researcher has determined an area to work with for a research project, a search of relevant information sources will help determine what is already known about the topic and how extensively the topic has already been researched.

Identification of the experts on a particular topic . One of the additional benefits derived from doing the literature review is that it will quickly reveal which researchers have written the most on a particular topic and are, therefore, probably the experts on the topic. Someone who has written twenty articles on a topic or on related topics is more than likely more knowledgeable than someone who has written a single article. This same writer will likely turn up as a reference in most of the other articles written on the same topic. From the number of articles written by the author and the number of times the writer has been cited by other authors, a researcher will be able to assume that the particular author is an expert in the area and, thus, a key resource for consultation in the current research to be undertaken.

Identification of key questions about a topic that need further research . In many cases a researcher may discover new angles that need further exploration by reviewing what has already been written on a topic. For example, research may suggest that listening to music while studying might lead to better retention of ideas, but the research might not have assessed whether a particular style of music is more beneficial than another. A researcher who is interested in pursuing this topic would then do well to follow up existing studies with a new study, based on previous research, that tries to identify which styles of music are most beneficial to retention.

Determination of methodologies used in past studies of the same or similar topics.  It is often useful to review the types of studies that previous researchers have launched as a means of determining what approaches might be of most benefit in further developing a topic. By the same token, a review of previously conducted studies might lend itself to researchers determining a new angle for approaching research.

Upon completion of the literature review, a researcher should have a solid foundation of knowledge in the area and a good feel for the direction any new research should take. Should any additional questions arise during the course of the research, the researcher will know which experts to consult in order to quickly clear up those questions.

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Aug 29, 2022 8:54 AM
• URL: https://libguides.unf.edu/litreview

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.7(10); 2021 Oct

Telework: systematic literature review and future research agenda

Associated data.

Data associated with this study is available online through the Scopus Database

Given the work and life conditions imposed by the ‘new normal’ Covid-19 era, a massive shift towards telework is expected and will likely continue long after the pandemic. Despite the resurgent interest in telework as an important aspect of ensuring business continuity, the literature base remains fragmented and variable. This study presents a taxonomical classification of literature on teleworking along with a comprehensive bibliography and future research agenda. To this aim, a systematic literature review methodology was adopted drawing on an evidence base of 40 articles published in high-ranking journals during the years 2000–2020. Findings capture key developments and synthesize existing areas of research focus. Important insights and gaps in the existing research are also pinpointed. The study may stimulate future research, represent a reference point for scholars interested in telework and at the same time provide an added advantage to managers for understanding crucial dimensions thereof.

Telework; Systematic literature review; Covid-19; Flexible working; Outcomes; Challenges; Technology.

1. Introduction

Since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, in 2020, working life -among other aspects of life-has undergone major changes worldwide. Flexible work arrangements, such as teleworking, are not newly introduced. Their adoption was gradually driven by a working life in transition characterized by multiple factors such as demographic changes in the workforce, employees’ preferences, ICTs development coupled with the reduction of related costs and increased availability, a tendency towards outsourcing activities, changes in employment types, less commuting time and pollution, work-life balance issues, economic pressures in the business environment and unpredictable changes resulting from global competition ( Lim and Teo, 2000 ; Kerrin and Hone, 2001 ; Taskin and Bridoux, 2010 ).

Moreover, given the new work and life conditions imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic, a massive shift towards telework is expected ( European Commission, 2020 ; ILO, 2020 ; OECD, 2020 ). According to early estimates, almost 40% of those who are currently working in the EU started to telework in a full-time mode as a result of the pandemic ( Eurofound, 2020 ). Until 2019, both government and EU bodies had invested in the promotion of telework due to its benefits to the organisation and the employees ( Kerrin and Hone, 2001 ; Peters et al., 2004 ). In the new era which began with the outbreak of Covid-19, when social distancing is considered an indispensable measure to combat the negative effects of the virus, the role of teleworking -‘tele’ meaning ‘far’- is hailed as critically important in preserving jobs and production ( European Commission, 2020 ; OECD, 2020 ). Moreover, office workers in the USA would like to work from home more often even when Covid-19 is not a threat anymore ( PwC, 2020 ).

The term ‘telework’ was originally coined in 1973 by Jack Nilles who defined telework as an activity which “ includes all work-related substitutions of telecommunications and related information technologies for travel ” ( Collins, 2005 , p. 115). Telework constituted a ‘hot’ topic for researchers, policy makers and practicians during the 1970s when digital networks and computers were widely introduced in business and work ( Vilhelmson and Thulin, 2016 ). At the same time, in the light of the oil crisis in the mid-1970s, flexibility entailed by telework seemed to be beneficial for both organizations and individuals ( Haddon and Brynin, 2005 ; Mann and Holdsworth, 2003 ). According to Nilles, if one in seven urban commuters dropped out, there would have been no need for the USA to import oil ( Mann and Holdsworth, 2003 ).

During the 1970s and 1980s, telework was perceived as the work arrangement of the future ( Illegems et al., 2001 ; Iscan and Naktiyok, 2005 ). However, despite optimistic predictions, the diffusion of telework, mostly as an occasional work pattern, had proven slow until 2019, when the Covid-19 outbreak took place ( European Commission, 2020 ; Illegems et al., 2001 ; Iscan and Naktiyok, 2005 ).

Amid the second wave of coronavirus in Europe, organizations are requested to implement a system of remote work covering more than 50% of their personnel. Popular press brims with articles related to different aspects of a teleworker's life. The academic field of telework will also blossom due to the pandemic. However, despite the large number of studies regarding telework adoption, research has been done in a fragmented way. For example, according to Martínez-Sánchez et al. (2007) most studies on telework were conducted in Anglo-Saxon countries. Hence, certain culture-specific attributes of teleworking have been underrepresented thereby leading to more biased results. Additionally, researchers quite frequently exclude specific worker types, such as occasional teleworkers, self-employed teleworkers or non-knowledge-workers, from their survey sample usually due to the fact that they are not deemed actual teleworkers by them ( Baruch, 2000 ; Sullivan, 2003 ; Wilks and Billsberry, 2007 ).

Before the pandemic, during the past ten years, the use of telework varied substantially across sectors, companies, occupations and countries ( European Commission, 2020 ; OECD, 2020 ). Those disparities suggest a wide scope for policies which could contribute to the spread of telework ( OECD, 2020 ) but also a weak ability to evenly scale up telework which could possibly lead to increasing inequalities across the global North and South, countries, organizations and employees.

The dramatic changes in every aspect of everyday life imposed by the pandemic do not allow for any mistakes or delays regarding telework implementation. Challenges related to telework adoption and implementation should be acknowledged and dealt with as telework is bound to become the main work arrangement and remain as such even when the pandemic is over. The positive outcomes should also be stressed to render telework more appealing to workers who were used to lead a more sociable working life. On the other hand, less positive outcomes should be identified. Subsequently, several measures could be applied to offset any potential negative impact of telework.

Telework is not a novel concept but research on this academic field has not been exhaustive. Moreover, telework needs to be adopted largely and mandatorily -as opposed to partially and optionally-under emergency conditions in the public health sector. Thus, systematically acknowledging and developing dedicated telework research will help us better navigate the context of this fragmented research base. Within this context, a critical assessment of study components, such as methodologies, underlying research themes and participant details will lay the groundwork for a roadmap to guide future investigations.

Starting from these premises, this paper explores the concept of ‘telework’ initially by discussing the main issues regarding the definition of ‘telework’ and ‘teleworker’. Based on the aforementioned rationale, this study adopts a systematic approach led by the following research questions:

• RQ1: What is the extent and coverage of articles on telework?
• RQ2: Which methods are used in research regarding telework and what is the unit of analysis and the geographical and industry scope in each case?
• RQ3: What are the main research themes studied?
• RQ4: Based on what we know thus far, what are some new future research directions?

2. Defining ‘telework’

A massive shift towards telework is expected in the Covid-19 and post Covid-19 era. In order to properly investigate the research questions developed in this study and to address issues which will generally affect the diffusion of telework in the long term, it is imperative to understand what ‘telework’ is.

In telework research, there is no universally accepted definition of the term ‘telework’ ( Martínez-Sánchez et al., 2007 ). There seems to be an important, albeit not total, agreement regarding the criteria applied in order to define ‘telework’. However, there has been no consensus on the emphasis given by researchers on different aspects of telework ( Wilks and Billsberry, 2007 ). A remote work location and the use of ICTs constitute two of the most agreed upon criteria while affiliation to an employer and the time threshold to telework have puzzled researchers leading some of them to exclude self-employed and occasional teleworkers from their teleworker samples ( Haddon and Brynin, 2005 ; Hilbrecht et al., 2008 ; Peters et al., 2004 ).

‘Telework’ and a host of other terms, such as ‘homeworking’, ‘telehomeworking’, ‘telecommuting’, ‘remote working’, ‘virtual work’, ‘electronic homeworking’ and ‘distributed work’ have been used interchangeably ( Golden and Eddleston, 2018 ; Haddon and Brynin, 2005 ; Illegems and Verbeke, 2004 ; Lautsch et al., 2009 ; Nunes, 2005 ). The terms ‘e-Work’ and ‘home-anchored work’ have also been suggested as an alternative to ‘telework’ ( Nunes, 2005 ; Whittle and Mueller, 2009 ).

Different types of telework have also been discussed and scholars usually agree on three main categories: home-based work or homeworking, group-based teleworking including satellite-office and neighborhood office centers and mobile telework or otherwise called nomadic ( Nunes, 2005 ; Pérez et al., 2002 ; Taskin and Devos, 2005 ; Wilson and Greenhil, 2004 ; Morganson et al., 2010 ). Some argue that there are more types of telework such as independent telework and networking or flexible teleworking systems ( Nunes, 2005 ; Taskin and Devos, 2005 ). Based on this telework typology, scholars distinguish certain categories of teleworkers, generally accepted in research ( Peters et al., 2004 ). Nevertheless, more focused groups of teleworkers are also delineated. Such an example is mentioned by Wilson and Greenhil (2004) who utilize Ovortup’s (1992) classification of teleworkers in substitutors, self-employed and supplementers.

In sum, telework is not a homogeneous entity. Rather, researchers refer to a telework continuum and a consequent spectrum of telework practices ( Wilks and Billsberry, 2007 ). Any pre-determined intensity or time threshold does not contribute to solving the problem of defining telework ( Haddon and Brynin, 2005 ). In order to offset the lack of a universally accepted telework definition, some researchers used project-specific definitions. Sullivan (2003) argues against past studies that such definitions are not only inevitable but can also prove beneficial for the refinement of future definitions and can contribute to the creation of future sampling strategies. Moreover, it is suggested that the nature and history of telework as a social construction is reflected in the different interests of researchers and the various discourses regarding telework ( Haddon and Brynin, 2005 ).

3. Methodology

The systematic literature review method was used in this study. The main purpose of this literature review is twofold. Initially, it aims to explicitly summarize the extant research pattern regarding telework. Second, it seeks to identify the main research gaps in the literature and to suggest a future research agenda. This method is particularly useful because it provides a systematic, explicit and comprehensive collection of existing knowledge as well as knowledge gaps on a flexible form of work, known as ‘telework’ or ‘telecommuting’, and its potential impact on employees and organizations which adopt such practices as well as on society at large ( Nguyen et al., 2018 ).

Systematic literature reviews are becoming increasingly common within management research ( Phillips et al., 2014 ). They combine cross-referencing between journals and researchers, thorough searches of research databases and applying inclusion/exclusion criteria thereby resulting in theoretically sound research which is also methodologically rigorous and provides scholars and practitioners with a reliable basis to formulate decisions and act accordingly ( Phillips et al., 2014 ). An overview of the study's methodology is given in Figure 1 .

Literature review analysis methodology.

3.1. Data collection

In order to carry out this literature review we used secondary data sourced from Scopus database, a source which has been recommended and applied by numerous researchers in their systematic literature review analyses (Lauretta and Ferreira, 2018). First, the research foundations were defined and the search terms were identified. The definition of the search terms constitutes a significant stage of the overall process of a systematic literature review ( Tranfield et al., 2003 ).

During the initial phase that is the planning process, the research questions reflecting the main objectives of our study were formulated. Three terms related to telework were included in the article title. For this study, three words were identified as the search terms, namely ‘telework’, ‘teleworking’ and ‘telecommuting’. The search was firstly conducted without the presence of any restrictions or limitations in terms of keywords. The result of the initial search was 937 documents.

Furthermore, certain filters were applied so that results reflect the primary focus of the study. Consequently, the search focused on ‘telework’ or ‘teleworking’ or ‘telecommuting’ appearing in documents published between 2000 and 2020. The number of documents dropped to 654. Additionally, the type of source and document were specified as Journal and Article, respectively, and the subject area as Business, Management and Accounting. A list of keywords, namely ‘telework’, ‘teleworking’, ‘telecommuting’ and ‘flexible work’ was also compiled to further filter results. Following the application of the filters, 135 studies were obtained. The search formula as used in Scopus database is available in the Appendix.

3.2. Data inclusion

Subsequently, a quality threshold was applied and publications were only included in the analysis if the journal in which they were published was classified as category 3, 4 or 4∗ in the ABS Academic Journal Guide. The application of quality standards resulted in 89 articles being excluded. The remaining 46 articles were reviewed and analyzed by title and abstract. In certain cases, when abstracts provided less information than necessary, a more thorough examination of the article took place leading to its final inclusion or exclusion.

Inclusion criteria were established to ensure that the reviewed articles reflect the main purpose of this study and its component research questions. Such criteria comprise i) articles on teleworking employees, ii) article title, document type, source type, keywords and publication year as specified in Figure 2 , iii) empirical and conceptual papers and iv) papers in 3,4 or 4∗ journals as determined by the Academic Journal Guide (2018) of the Association of Business Schools.

Trajectory of telework research during the last twenty years, based on reviewed studies (ABS list classification: 3–4∗).

Following this, 6 studies were excluded according to three criteria as shown in Table 1 . First, two articles were excluded because they focused on non-teleworkers in organizations where telework is an option for employees or in organizations where the manager is the one who teleworks. One more article was not included in the body of literature studied in this paper as it examined the impact of several team characteristics on supervisors' attitudes towards teleworking. Last, three articles which weakly explored questions related to the purpose of this study were also ruled out. In particular, those articles presented results regarding i) the European social dialogue on telework through ‘soft’ law, ii) the differences in resource investment between teleworking and non-teleworking firms and iii) patterns of usage of communication technologies and computers by teleworkers based on their background. Finally, a total of 40 studies were systematically reviewed.

Table 1

Criteria for paper exclusion.

4. Findings

4.1. q1: extent and coverage of articles.

All papers were analyzed and codified and data extracted are presented in Table 2 , Figure 2 and Table 3 . Table 2 presents a summary of the research method used in each study, the main research objectives and most important findings. Articles in Table 2 are referred to by the name of author/-s and publication year. In addition, Figure 2 provides an overview of the trajectory of telework research during the last 20 years while Table 3 shows the number of articles per publication source and classification thereof according to the ABS list.

Table 2

Articles analyzed based on name of author/-s, method, research questions and findings.

Table 3

Number of articles per ABS Academic Journal Guide Source and ABS Classification.

What stands out in Figure 2 is that most of the studies reviewed were published during the first half of the 20-year period under research. In detail, twenty-six articles were published between 2000 and 2009 when only fourteen were published in the 2010–2020 period. A possible explanation could be that the slow increase in telework during the 2010–2019 decade led to a decreased interest in research regarding telework and other flexible work practices.

As Table 3 shows, the publication sources belong to four different areas, namely Business/Business Ethics/Social Sciences, Leadership and Management, Technology and Innovation, and Gender. The main outlet for telework studies were journals in the Technology and Innovation research strand implying a strong relationship between telework and technology. Interestingly, papers from ‘New Technology, Work and Employment’ account for 35% of the total number of articles while those published in academic sources in both the Technology and the Business domains correspond to half of the articles studied in this paper.

The predetermined quality threshold led to sources classified as category 3, 4 or 4∗ in the ABS Academic Journal Guide. The vast majority (70%) of the articles reviewed were found in journals of category 3 when 27,5% of the papers are published in category 4 and only 2,5% in category 4∗ sources. A possible explanation for the lack of very high-quality research on telework could point to its limited usage and non-prominence in the pre Covid-19 era. However, the sharp rise in telework after the outbreak of coronavirus leads to the need for more high-quality research on the topic.

4.2. RQ2: What methods were used?

The overall strategy selected by each author or group of authors in order to logically and coherently integrate different study components is explored in this unit. As shown in Table 4 , more than half of the papers adopted a quantitative research design while 30% of the articles are developed based on a qualitative method. A few authors chose to use both types. The dominant techniques for collecting data are surveys and interviews.

Table 4

Research design and methodology adopted in the reviewed articles.

The major entities analyzed in the studies, also known as the units of analysis, are employees and managers. Table 5 illustrates what the unit of analysis is in all studies under review. Professional-level employees and (female) employees with children are the primary unit of analysis. Managers, especially HR managers, also constitute a common unit of analysis. In certain articles, both employees and managers are examined in order to explore both subjectively and objectively any employee-related issue. Studies also consider university students, job seekers, teleworkers’ colleagues, customers and co-residents albeit less frequently.

Table 5

Level of analysis, number of participants and data analysis techniques per study.

Furthermore, Table 5 provides details about the number of participants and data analysis techniques for the studies under review. Sample size ranges from 8 ( Wilks and Billsberry, 2007 ) to 1.134 individuals ( Neirotti et al., 2013 ) for primary data while secondary data collected even reached 51.000 entries ( Vilhelmson and Thulin, 2016 ). Additionally, a variety of techniques were employed for data analysis.

The next table classifies each study based on its geographical and industry scope. Close inspection of Table 6 shows that the study samples come from several industries, however, samples from telecommunications and technology-related sectors are more popular in telework research. This is consistent with the findings reported in Table 3 according to which most of the articles studied in this paper were published in technology-focused sources. Results lead to two possible explanations: either there is a causal relationship between those two findings or telework is largely associated by scholars with technology.

Table 6

Geographical and business scope of articles.

As shown in Table 7 , studies in this review investigate telework in several countries. Studies were conducted mainly in European countries (55%) and the USA (17,5%). Only one paper constituted a cross-country study. A possible explanation for that could be the fact that telework is highly context dependent intensified by the lack of a generally accepted telework definition.

Table 7

Number of articles per country of research.

4.3. RQ3: What are the main research themes studied?

The third research question concerning the main research themes led to a table with three different kinds of themes based on whether they are employee-, organization- or manager-related. According to Table 8 , during the 2000–2020 period, research on telework focused on employees by investigating potential career impacts, work-life balance issues, opportunities and preference of telework, job satisfaction as a result of telework and the importance of self-control. Further, studies measured the productivity, competitive advantage and general performance of organizations which had adopted telework.

Table 8

Main research themes.

Other organization-level telework-related topics, such as employee commitment towards the organization as well as turnover rates and human resources management practices, were explored. Additionally, authors analyzed what is referred to as ‘the telework paradoxes’ that managers have to deal with, namely ‘individual vs collective’ and ‘autonomy vs control’, managerial approaches towards telework and decisions on allowing telework. Last, employee and manager perceptions regarding advantages and disadvantages as well as potential enablers and constraints of telework within the workplace were considered. Table 8 presents the main research themes categorized by whether they correspond to the employees, managers or the organization.

In this study, the main research themes found in the reviewed articles were divided into two categories, telework challenges and outcomes. The main reason behind this approach is because addressing both challenges and outcomes related to telework in the extant literature will be conducive to overcoming the former and improving the latter. As a result, a review of telework outcomes, such as the inclusion in the workforce of certain groups, job satisfaction, work-life balance, career impacts, productivity and performance as well as interpersonal interaction and social isolation, will be conducted followed by a discussion on challenges which rise in a telework work environment, such as the autonomy versus control paradox and the relationships between teleworkers and non-teleworkers.

4.3.1. Telework outcomes

4.3.1.1. the inclusion of certain groups.

Telework has been portrayed as “ a new job organisation paradigm for companies working in the new Economy ” ( Pérez et al., 2002 , p. 775). On the other hand, it has been claimed that telework does not constitute a major shift in organizational practices as it reflects traditional occupational practices ( Haddon and Brynin, 2005 ). It lies, therefore, in a more thorough analysis to establish how telework impacts different aspects of the business world.

Telework is linked to the inclusion of certain groups in employment. Baruch (2000) supports that teleworking could possibly fit individuals in critical periods of their lifetime. Married individuals with young children and, especially, female employees can benefit from a flexible working practice, such as telework ( Baruch, 2000 ; Chung and van der Horst, 2018 ; Hilbrecht et al., 2008 ; Iscan and Naktiyok, 2005 ; Sullivan and Lewis, 2001 ; Vilhelmson and Thulin, 2016 ). Chung and van der Horst (2018) found that flexitime and telework helped women sustain their employment status in the time after the birth of their children.

Home-related problems appear to be a responsibility of women and ‘feminine’ time is considered domestic and polychronic as opposed to the ‘masculine’ industrial time ( Hilbrecht et al., 2008 ; Iscan and Naktiyok, 2005 ). Despite the fact that men's participation in the domestic field has slowly increased, family commitments still remain more marginal for men ( Sullivan and Lewis, 2001 ). As a result, women view telework as an opportunity to combine work and family ( Chung and van der Horst, 2018 ; Hilbrecht et al., 2008 ; Iscan and Naktiyok, 2005 ). In spite of the fact that telework seems to reproduce traditional and not gender-equitable roles -as women have less time devoted to themselves and an unequal domestic burden-this remains unrecognized by most women who perceive it as the price they pay for their dual role ( Hilbrecht et al., 2008 ; Sullivan and Lewis, 2001 ; Wilson and Greenhil, 2004 ).

It has been reported that another group of people who could benefit from telework is the people recovering from an accident or the disabled ( Baruch, 2000 ; Nunes, 2005 ). Nunes (2005) notes that telework offers an opportunity for people with disabilities in Portugal to be integrated in the labor market. Several temporal and spatial characteristics of the traditional workplace act like a constraint to the participation of those groups in employment, either temporarily or permanently ( Nunes, 2005 ). Nevertheless, Peters et al. (2004) observed that partly disabled employees were not offered the opportunity to telework more often than other employees. Moreover, they did not prefer to do so and they practically did not telework more often than others ( Peters et al., 2004 ).

On the other side, telework has been ‘accused’ of excluding certain worker groups such as those with no technical skills, the low level educated and those residing in rural areas ( Nunes, 2005 ; Peters et al., 2004 ; Vilhelmson and Thulin, 2016 ). However, Sullivan (2003) contends that for people living in rural areas telework is not just an option but rather the only option for employment.

4.3.1.2. Job satisfaction

Job satisfaction reflects the quality of the relationship between the employee and the organisation and is inextricably linked to one of the most important telework effects, namely the benefits of attracting, motivating and retaining the human capital resource-base of the organisation ( Illegems and Verbeke, 2004 ). Job satisfaction needs to be understood on two levels. First, it is derived from the job itself (intrinsic satisfaction) but also from the conditional effects which result from differences in the activities embedded in the job (extrinsic satisfaction) ( Golden and Veiga, 2005 ; Illegems and Verbeke, 2004 ).

Morganson et al. (2010) report equally high levels of job satisfaction between main office and home-based workers while most researchers agree on increased job satisfaction for teleworkers especially under specific circumstances ( Baruch, 2000 ; Golden and Veiga, 2005 ; Illegems and Verbeke, 2004 ; Martinez-Sanchez et al., 2007 ; Müller and Niessen, 2019 ; Simpson et al., 2003 ; Virick et al., 2010 ). A curvilinear relationship has been detected by both Virick et al. (2010) and Golden and Veiga (2005) between the extent of telework and job satisfaction moderated by performance outcome orientation as well as task interdependence and job discretion, respectively. Both studies imply the existence of a critical threshold in the time devoted to telework beyond which benefits to job satisfaction cease to accrue.

4.3.1.3. Work-life balance

Telework is generally associated with high levels of work-life balance ( Chung and van der Horst, 2018 ; Collins, 2005 ; Hibrecht et al., 2008 ; Kossek et al., 2006 ; Lautsch et al., 2009 ; Mann and Holdsworth, 2003 ; Sullivan and Lewis, 2001 ). In contrast, Whittle and Mueller (2009, p. 140) disagree with what they call a “one-sided view of the realities of telework” by questioning the idea that purchasing an internet connection or a laptop can automatically result in benefits such as work-life balance.

The results of this literature review show that telework can indeed be linked to increased work-life balance under certain conditions. Chung and van der Horst (2018) cite Piszczek and Berg's (2014) view according to which it is the institutional setting of each country -which influences who has access to flexible work arrangements-that shapes how telework will affect work-life balance. Strong boundaries between the family and the work domain are also associated with better work-life balance and increased well-being facilitated by flexibility ( Chung and van der Horst, 2018 ; Kossek et al., 2006 ; Lautsch et al., 2009 ). Additionally, greater psychological job control and a sharing-information supervision approach lead to lower family-work conflict ( Kossek et al., 2006 ; Lautsch et al., 2009 ).

On the other hand, Delanoeije et al. (2019) maintain that, on teleworking days, workers experience less work-to-home conflict but more home-to-work conflict and that those with a strong home protection preference report more conflict resulting from interruption from work. Last, Sullivan and Lewis (2001) assert that working at home can be a source of family conflict as it also affects the lives of co-residents.

4.3.1.4. Career impacts

Mann and Holdsworth (2003) and Illegems et al. (2001) both acknowledge telework as an impediment of career progression. Kerrin and Hone (2001) reveal the fear of employees that telework may reduce their chances for career advancement while Mann and Holdsworth (2003) report that women who telework are not even perceived as working by others.

Telework is related to negative career outcomes because of the perceived lack of dedication to one's career and the flexibility stigma that is “ the devaluation of employees who use flexible work practices … because they are seen as deviating from the work devotion schema that places work at the center of one's life ” ( Golden and Eddleston, 2018 ). In fact, Golden and Eddleston, 2018 found similar results for teleworkers and non-teleworkers in terms of promotions. Although, they detected a negative relationship between telework and salary growth. In their study, they conclude that it is not teleworking per se but its extent which is negatively associated with promotions and salary growth and that occasional teleworkers enjoyed greater career benefits.

Golden and Eddleston, 2018 point to three moderators, namely supplemental work, an effective impression management strategy and the appropriate work context. In particular, when supplemental work is high, employees who telework more will receive more promotions and greater salary growth than when supplemental work is low. In terms of the work context, in organizations where teleworking normativeness is high, employees who telework more will receive more promotions -but not greater salary growth-than when they work in a less telework normative environment. Finally, face-to-face contact with the supervisor is considered an effective impression management strategy which leads to greater salary growth for extensive teleworkers when it is high.

4.3.1.5. Productivity and firm performance

Improved productivity and firm performance are two of the important advantages of telework ( Baruch, 2000 ; Illegems et al., 2001 ; Mann and Holdsworth, 2003 ; Nunes, 2005 ). Lautsch et al. (2009) claim that it is how telework is implemented that determines whether it will have a positive impact on performance. Martínez-Sánchez et al. (2007) and Illegems and Verbeke (2004) highlight the importance of human resources (HR) development practices as a moderator in the relationship between telework and firm performance. Both studies assess such practices as necessary in order to enhance what otherwise would be a marginal contribution of teleworking to the organization.

Access to HR practices can increase an individual's self-efficacy and the organization's broader productivity efficiency ( Illegems and Verbeke, 2004 ; Martínez-Sánchez et al., 2007 ). Moreover, HR development reinforces the positive effect of teleworking on the company's flexibility besides its financial and innovation performance ( Martínez-Sánchez et al., 2007 ; Pérez et al., 2002 ).

Another interesting contribution is made by Dutcher (2012) who distinguishes between the productivity of creative and dull tasks within the telework context. Dutcher (2012) proves that teleworking environmental effects may positively affect productivity of creative tasks but negatively impact productivity of dull tasks. Kossek et al. (2006) recognize the link between a formal use of telework policies and higher performance but cannot prove whether formal telework policies lead to increased performance or if the direction of the very relationship is reversed. Perez et al.’s (2002) paper is the only one which negatively relates telework to productivity and that is only when the teleworker has a dual role including raising children.

4.3.1.6. Interpersonal interaction and social isolation

Interpersonal interaction is defined by Humphrey et al. (2007) as “ the extent to which a job provides opportunities to interact and engage with others ” ( Windeler et al., 2017 , p. 978). On the one hand, it is argued that telework and the ‘despatialisation’ relative to its practice may negatively impact social and professional interaction thereby leading to a sense of social isolation ( Illegems and Verbeke, 2004 ; Morganson et al., 2010 ; Taskin and Devos, 2005 ; Whittle and Mueller, 2009 ). In addition to isolation, telework is linked to a concern regarding the potential exclusion, both social and professional, of teleworkers but also to loneliness, and disconnection which are, in turn, associated with negative emotions ( Mann and Holdsworth, 2003 ; Sewell and Taskin, 2015 ; Whittle and Mueller, 2009 ). Baruch (2000) , therefore, proposes that an individual with high need for social life is not fit for telework.

On the other hand, Wilks and Billsberry (2007) argue that it depends on the characteristics of each individual whether isolation will be viewed as a drawback. Illegems and Verbeke (2004) also suggest that the appropriate HR management practices can provide a benevolent work environment so that interpersonal interaction is not negatively affected. After all, social interaction is not unanimously judged as positive or negative. Windeler et al. (2017) and Wilson and Greenhil (2004) maintain that social interaction places more emotional demands which are unwelcomed by employees. The former discovers a growing recognition of the costs linked to social interaction, such as increased work exhaustion, while highlighting the important role of the quality and quantity of interaction. Part-time telework - but not full-time telework-is found to alleviate the negative effects of interaction quantity as it acts like a mini-break. Simpson et al. (2003) , also refer to isolation as a highly subjective experience depending on the nature of the role, the personal experiences of the teleworker and their attitude towards technology. For example, isolation of rural workers was reduced rather than caused by telework.

4.3.2. Telework challenges

4.3.2.1. autonomy vs control.

One of the major challenges that researchers and practitioners of telework have to deal with is the ‘autonomy vs control’ paradox or otherwise referred to as the ‘flexibility paradox’ which implies some flexibility and autonomy in spatial and temporal terms but the organization must simultaneously establish procedures in order to ensure that it continues to work efficiently and develop employees ( Martínez-Sánchez et al., 2007 ; Sewell and Taskin, 2015 ; Taskin and Devos, 2005 ).

The teleworking environment and, most importantly, the relative autonomy over where and when one works has been praised by employees who need to combine their work with the timetables of their children ( Sullivan and Lewis, 2001 ). In addition, according to Daniels et al. (2001) international employees who telework tend to enjoy higher levels of autonomy owing to the emotional and physical distance from the home-office ( Mayo et al., 2009 ).

Anderson et al. (2014) argue that working in a teleworking environment leads to positive emotions due to the perceived autonomy, control and flexibility. Such higher levels of autonomy and the entailed transfer of responsibility, however, present the risk of an intensification of the mental burden for teleworkers ( Taskin and Devos, 2005 ). Within this context, self-leading strategies, meaning those strategies which enable individuals to successfully accomplish tasks even when they are unpleasant, are deemed a necessary resource but are also demanding themselves ( Müller and Niessen, 2019 ; Taskin and Devos, 2005 ).

Conversely, self-management strategies are associated with managerial telework allowance decisions ( Beham et al., 2015 ). One possible explanation is that these strategies are required in trust management ( Taskin and Devos, 2005 ). The distantiation negatively affects the trust relationship between teleworkers and supervisors due to lack of face-to-face contact ( Sewell and Taskin, 2015 ; Taskin and Bridoux, 2010 ).

On one side, teleworking allowance might be viewed as proof of trust from the supervisor towards the employee thereby leading the latter to an attempt to reciprocate by disciplining themselves or by showing appreciation and loyalty ( Morganson et al., 2010 ; Wilson and Greenhil, 2004 ). Coordination based on mutual trust is considered the solution to the lack of face-to-face contact and direct supervision yet managers are often reluctant to abandon full control over the working process and adopt new control habits ( Golden and Veiga, 2005 ; Perez et al., 2002 ; Illegems et al., 2001 ).

Snell (1992) proposes three different kinds of control systems based on behavior, input and output while research suggests that more objective types of control are more motivating ( Virik et al., 2010 ). Iscan and Naktiyok (2005) claim that managers have difficulties in controlling and monitoring teleworkers. Vilhelmson and Thulin (2016) , eleven years after Iscan and Naktiyok's study, argue that manager's control and other essential constraining factors to the adoption of telework eased as a result of the advanced internet-based systems for supervision.

Sewell and Taskin (2015) support that teleworkers are obliged to accept an intensified technocratic control system which undermines their autonomy. However, this supervision is not recognized by teleworkers as control but as a by-product of the new mode of working ( Sewell and Taskin, 2015 ). Lautsch et al. (2009) and Illegems et al. (2001) propose a change in the models of supervision which will possibly pave the way for more positive outcomes for both the teleworkers and the organization. Instead of an increase in manager's controls -since presence and visibility cannot be checked in situ and de visu-supervisors are advised to apply an approach placing emphasis on sharing information rather than closely monitoring teleworkers' work schedules ( Lautsch et al., 2009 ; Taskin and Bridoux, 2010 ). Once again, the role of HR development practices in the improvement of the trust relationship between the supervisor and the teleworker is underlined ( Illegems and Verbeke, 2004 ; Martinez-Sanchez et al., 2007 ).

4.3.2.2. Teleworkers and non-teleworkers relationship

Telework has resulted in the creation of tension between those employees who telework and those who do not. Teleworkers express worries regarding workplace exclusion ( Morganson et al., 2010 ; Sewell and Taskin, 2015 ). An ‘us and them’ feeling has emerged between teleworkers and non-teleworkers ( Collins, 2005 ). Teleworkers fear that non-adopters of telework would doubt about teleworkers' commitment, trustworthiness and the extent of their contribution ( Sewell and Taskin, 2015 ). In this context, the availability principle replaced the responsiveness principle. While the latter is seen as an important contributor to autonomy, Sewell and Taskin (2015) maintain that the former leads to a new norm of conduct which enhances technocratic managerial control by means of forming a peer-based social control system.

Following the impact of telework on the trust relationship between adopters and non-adopters of teleworking mediated by the lack of face-to-face contact, the transfer of knowledge between the two groups was also negatively affected ( Taskin and Bridoux, 2010 ). In fact, the nature of the relationship between them was altered leading to more superficial connections and fears of inability to cooperate with each other while teleworkers simultaneously tried to place themselves into the workplace on the days they did not telework (Sewell and Taskin, 2015; Wilson and Greenhil, 2004 ). Taskin and Bridoux (2010) suggest that new routines need to be developed to ensure better contact between the two groups as colleague support is considered beneficial to attitudes towards teleworking ( Iscan and Naktiyok, 2005 ; Taskin and Bridoux, 2010 ).

An increasing complexity in managing mixed groups has been detected ( Collins, 2005 ; Lautsch et al., 2009 ). Perceived advantages and disadvantages by both groups are to blame for the resentment between teleworkers and non-teleworkers ( Collins, 2005 ; Iscan and Naktiyok, 2005 ). Managers are faced with five dilemmas in terms of monitoring the two groups, work schedule regulation, time allocated to each group, boundary control between work and family and reward system ( Collins, 2005 ; Lautsch et al., 2009 ). Researchers consent to the adoption of the same approach towards teleworkers and non-teleworkers for more positive results ( Collins, 2005 ; Lautsch et al., 2009 ).

4.4. RQ4: Based on what we know thus far, what are some new future research directions?

This unit will provide codified information on suggestions for future research as extracted from the reviewed papers. Table 9 presents an analysis of the future research suggestions per article while Table 10 summarizes these suggestions into the most prominent future research directions.

Table 9

Future research suggestions.

Table 10

Main future research directions.

Given the different modes of teleworking along with its implications on the employees, the manager and the organisation as a whole, Table 10 offers a snapshot of the key domains and areas of focus of future research directions.

First, with respect to social issues, research needs to focus on how telework impacts a teleworker's life. Social interactions of teleworkers themselves and with their non-teleworking colleagues or their co-residents/partners, should be investigated. Apart from the quantity of interaction, quality also plays an important role as it results in positive or negative effects in terms of work engagement, job satisfaction, emotional and physical well-being. The co-existence of at least two teleworkers in the same house and consequent issues of availability of space and equipment as well as childcare issues need to be further explored.

Since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic in early 2020, telework has been featured as the solution to a viable future of the business world. In light of the recent developments in the public health domain, it is suggested that future work should deepen the analysis of telework in different contexts and add more telework dimensions. Differences in the economies or technological development of the countries where organisations operate may account for disparities in the adoption and implementation of telework. Additionally, people living in less developed urban areas or even in rural areas would not have equal opportunities to acquire a higher-level job. In the new era, given the general telework diffusion, large and well-known organisations may be more open to hire talented individuals who reside much farther than the organisation's premises.

Moreover, other telework dimensions could affect the way telework is viewed and practiced. The intensity of telework and several potential moderators, such as the variety of tasks performed via telework, and the shift of the implementation of telework from an optional mode to a compulsory one are some examples. Future research on these topics is deemed necessary.

Finally, another call for future research on telework recommends the examination of possible enablers and/or constraints. For example, HRM practices and different aspects of the leadership style, such as reward, are considered a critical factor determining the adoption and implementation of flexible work arrangements, such as telework ( Illegems and Verbeke, 2004 ; Martínez-Sánchez et al., 2007 ; Mayo et al., 2009 ; Pérez et al., 2002 ). It is, therefore, important to study how HRM practices can contribute to the most effective way of telework management. Moreover, the development of e-HRM systems, which support the positive role of the HR department as an organisational agent in the relationship between the organisation and its employees ( Bissola and Imperatori, 2013 ), could be investigated in a telework work environment.

The relationship between leadership style and employee outcomes in a teleworking context is also suggested as a subject that future research could address. Müller and Niessen (2019) investigated the relationship between self-leading behavior and working location as well as autonomy as a possible mediator. Mayo et al. (2009) also studied the association of contingent reward leadership style with a company's tendency to adopt telework. However, more research is deemed necessary in order to clarify the role of the leader and the effect of different leadership styles in the implementation of telework with emphasis on leadership as an enabler or a constraint and on the leader's support towards and control over teleworkers.

Telework has been extensively linked to Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs); however, the relationship between ICTs development and flexible work practices has not triggered an explicitly stated need for more research. Interestingly, most scholars view ICTs as an enabler or facilitator of telework ( Sewell and Taskin, 2015 ; Vilhelmson and Thulin, 2016 ). Nevertheless, other researchers suggest that there is also a negative side in using technology at work ( Ayyagari et al., 2011 ) as well as in relationship between ICTs and telework. For instance, Collins (2005) refers to stress as an indirect result of ICT development via telework and Illegems and Verbeke (2004) mentions frustration as a possible outcome of ICT equipment failure. Last, Wilson and Greenhil (2004) elaborate on the impact of ICT on the construction of identity of female teleworkers.

Salazar-Concha et al. (2021) argue that the impact of ICTs on humans varies based on whether technology is used in a voluntary way or not. Since telework is becoming more of a necessity in the covid and post-covid era, more research on technology-related issues could shed light on more subtle aspects of telework. For instance, technostress, defined as the negative impact of technology on users, is an anticipated managerial concern within the contemporary workplace and an emerging research topic worldwide ( Salazar-Concha et al., 2021 ). More elaborate investigation of technostress and other psychosocial effects of ICTs use in the new normal could advance insights into the teleworking experience.

5. Conclusion

This study constitutes a systematic literature review of the extant academic work on telework. Telework, undoubtedly, holds an important position in the current continuous strife for resilience and flexibility as the business world pursues its viability within one of the most difficult periods for all industries worldwide due to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. This study is an attempt to present the main points of interest within the telework literature during the last 20 years.

A total number of 40 articles on telework were reviewed. Data were codified and presented in detail following an analysis of the challenge regarding defining telework. Data extracted were classified according to four research questions concerning i) the extent and coverage of the articles, ii) methods used in telework research as well as the unit of analysis and both the geographical and industry scope of the articles, iii) the main research questions posed by authors and iv) new future research directions.

With regard to the limitations of the present study, the dataset used is comprehensive yet not exhaustive. As also mentioned in the methodology section, only leading journals documenting the perceptions of highly-esteemed scientific committees and editors have been included. Undoubtedly, important, high-value studies published in other academic journals have been omitted. Those lower-rated journals may even have greater international exposure and insight. Another limitation is the time-frame of the study which includes article published in the last 2 decades.

The definition of ‘telework’ has not been unanimously agreed upon resulting in the exclusion of several workers, such as occasional or self-employed teleworkers, from the research samples. Additionally, during the last twenty years, there has been a dramatic development of ICTs leading to different working and supervision conditions implying that disparities in the results could be attributed to technological advancement. Last but not least, the research papers reviewed addressed telework only as an optional work arrangement consequently limiting the applicability of the findings to the pre-Covid-19 era.

In terms of theoretical implications, this study offers a deeper reflection and broader reaching understanding of the extent and coverage of ‘telework’ articles as well as of the potential outcomes concerning telework so that future researchers can see how the mapping of the telework field has been done.

First, this paper has provided insight into the reasons behind the lack of a generally accepted definition for ‘telework’ and ‘teleworker’ while suggesting that project-specific definitions may be more appropriate in the field of telework research. Additionally, this paper may constitute a useful tool for academics who wish to study work arrangements in the covid and post-covid era as it offers a review of important aspects of the telework adoption and practice. Scholars who intend to investigate telework issues in the coming years can be informed about the methods, data analysis techniques, research questions and methodologies used in previous research. In this way, future studies will be able to test and either confirm or reject findings of extant literature. Moreover, scholars could make use of alternative methods regarding the collection and analysis of data within telework research to contribute to the variety of literature on this subject.

From a theoretical perspective, our study extended our knowledge on the positive and negative consequences of telework on teleworkers but also on their co-workers and managers and organizations. In other words, telework may facilitate the inclusion of certain groups, such as married people with little children, especially women, into the labor force ( Chung and van der Horst, 2018 ). Findings suggest that it also contributes to employees’ job satisfaction ( Müller and Niessen, 2019 ) although divergent results have also been reported ( Morganson et al., 2010 ; Virick et al., 2010 ). Telework was also found to impact work-life balance depending on the institutional setting of the country where teleworkers operate ( Chung and van der Horst (2018) and the boundaries between work and family ( Lautsch et al., 2009 ).

Regarding employee productivity and career growth, is has been claimed that the way in and the extent to which telework is implemented, rather than telework per se, could lead to certain positive or negative results ( Golden and Eddleston, 2018 ; Lautsch et al., 2009 ). Concerns have been raised with regard to social isolation of teleworkers. However, when isolation is viewed as a negative result of telework, HR practices could be used to reverse it ( Illegems and Verbeke, 2004 ).

In the post-covid era, flexible work practices, such as telework, are expected to proliferate. Telework, which once failed to live up to the expectations of being the ‘work arrangement of the future’ is now providing the business world with the opportunity to overcome important issues of everyday life and resume a viable future. From a practice perspective, this paper could aid managers and practitioners, teleworkers and their co-workers by providing them with the necessary information about the positive effects of telework and ways to improve any negative aspects thereof.

First, this study could raise the awareness of managers regarding challenges stemming from the implementation of telework. Such challenges pertain to the necessary balance between employee autonomy and managerial control as well as the relationship between teleworkers and non-teleworkers. Autonomy over when and where one works contradicts the traditional control measures adopted by managers thereby requiring new methods of managerial control to be adopted and tested in the new, post-covid business environment ( Taskin and Devos, 2005 ; Müller and Niessen, 2019 ). This paper also provides some general directions to managers who intend to strategically integrate flexible work practices by discussing whether, for whom and why the adoption of such practices impact employee outcomes.

Tensions in the relationship between teleworkers and non-teleworkers might also emerge ( Sewell and Taskin, 2015 ). Both managers and employees -teleworking ones or not-should be prepared for the risks involved. Moreover, they can be informed of ways to overcome potential difficulties. For example, certain HR practices are suggested as helpful in the employee monitoring process while teleworking ( Müller and Niessen, 2019 ). Additionally, teleworkers are usually concerned about their career growth ( Golden and Eddleston, 2018 ). This paper summarizes the role of variance in the extent of telework in the relationship between telework and career growth so that each employee and each employer choses or adjusts the most appropriate teleworking plan based on their need for professional growth and productivity.

Declarations

Author contribution statement.

All authors listed have significantly contributed to the development and the writing of this article.

Funding statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Data availability statement

Declaration of interests statement.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

The following is the supplementary data related to this article:

• Anderson A.J., Kaplan S.A., Vega R.P. The impact of telework on emotional experience: when, and for whom, does telework improve daily affective well-being? Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 2014; 24 (6):882–897. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ayyagari R., Grover V., Purvis R.L. Technostress: technological antecedents and implications. MIS Q. 2011; 35 :831–858. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baruch Y. Teleworking: benefits and pitfalls as perceived by professionals and managers. New Technol. Work. Employ. 2000; 15 (1):34–49. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beham B., Baierl A., Poelmans S. Managerial telework allowance decisions – a vignette study among German managers. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2015; 26 (11):1385–1406. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bissola R., Imperatori B. Facing e-HRM: the consequences on employee attitude towards the organisation and the HR department in Italian SMEs. Eur. J. Int. Manag. 2013; 7 (4):450–468. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chung H., van der Horst M. Women’s employment patterns after childbirth and the perceived access to and use of flexitime and teleworking. Hum. Relat. 2018; 71 (1):1–26. Special Edition. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Collins M. The (not so simple) case for teleworking: a study at Lloyd’s of London. New Technol. Work. Employ. 2005; 20 (2):115–132. [ Google Scholar ]
• Delanoeije J., Verbruggen M., Germeys L. Boundary role transitions: a day-to day approach to explain the effects of home-based telework on work-to-home conflict and home-to-work conflict. Hum. Relat. 2019; 72 (12):1–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Daniels K., Lamond D., Standen P. Teleworking: frameworks for organizational research. J. Manag. 2001; 38 (8):1151–1185. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dutcher G.E. The effects of telecommuting on productivity: an experimental examination. The role of dull and creative tasks. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2012; 84 (1):355–363. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eurofound . European Union; Dublin: 2020. Living, Working and COVID-10: First Findings - April 2020. https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2020/living-working-and-covid-19 [ Google Scholar ]
• European Commission . Joint Research Centre; European Union: 2020. Telework in the EU before and after the COVID-19: where We Were, where We Head to – April 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/jrc120945_policy_brief_-_covid_and_telework_final.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Golden T.D. Avoiding depletion in virtual work: telework and the intervening impact of work exhaustion on commitment and turnover intentions. J. Vocat. Behav. 2006; 69 (1):176–187. [ Google Scholar ]
• Golden T.D., Eddleston K.A. Is there a price telecommuters pay? Examining the relationship between telecommuting and objective career success. J. Vocat. Behav. 2018; Part A (116):1–46. [ Google Scholar ]
• Golden T.D., Veiga J.F. The impact of extent of telecommuting on job satisfaction: resolving inconsistent findings. J. Manag. 2005; 31 (2):301–318. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haddon L., Brynin M. The character of telework and the characteristics of teleworkers. New Technol. Work. Employ. 2005; 20 (1):34–46. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hilbrecht M., Shaw S.M., Johnson L.C., Andrey J. “I’m home for the kids”: contradictory implications for work–life balance of teleworking mothers. Gend. Work. Organ. 2008; 15 (5):454–476. [ Google Scholar ]
• Humphrey S.E., Nahrgang J.D., Morgeson F.P. Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: a meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007; 92 (5):1332–1356. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Illegems V., Verbeke A. Telework: what does it mean for management? Long. Range Plan. 2004; 37 (4):319–334. [ Google Scholar ]
• Illegems V., Verbeke A., S’ Jegers R. The organizational context of teleworking implementation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change. 2001; 68 (3):275–291. [ Google Scholar ]
• ILO . 2020. COVID-19: Guidance for Labour Statistics Data collection. Defining And Measuring Remote Work, Telework, Work at home and home-based Work. Technical Note, International Labour Organization. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---stat/documents/publication/wcms_747075.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Iscan O.F., Naktiyok A. Attitudes towards telecommuting: the Turkish case. J. Inf. Technol. 2005; 20 (1):52–63. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kerrin M., Hone K. Job seekers’ perceptions of teleworking: a cognitive mapping approach. New Technol. Work. Employ. 2001; 16 (2):130–143. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kossek E.E., Lautsch B.A., Eaton S.C. Telecommuting, control, and boundary management: correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work-family effectiveness. J. Vocat. Behav. 2006; 68 (2):347–367. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lautsch B.A., Kossek E.E., Eaton S.C. Supervisory approaches and paradoxes in managing telecommuting implementation. Hum. Relat. 2009; 62 (6):795–827. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lim V.K.G., Teo T.S.H. To work or not to work at home. An empirical investigation of factors affecting attitudes towards teleworking. J. Manag. Psychol. 2000; 15 (6):560–586. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mann S., Holdsworth L. The psychological impact of teleworking: stress, emotions and health. New Technol. Work. Employ. 2003; 18 (3):196–211. [ Google Scholar ]
• Martínez-Sánchez A., Pérez-Pérez M., de-Luis-Carnicer P., Vela-Jiménez M.J. Telework, human resource flexibility and firm performance. New Technol. Work. Employ. 2007; 22 (3):208–223. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mayo M., Pastor J.-C., Gomez-Mejia L., Cruz C. Why some firms adopt telecommuting while others do not: a contingency perspective. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2009; 48 (6):917–939. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morganson V.J., Major D.A., Oborn K.L., Verive J.M., Heelan M.P. Comparing telework locations and traditional work arrangements Differences in work-life balance support, job satisfaction, and inclusion. J. Manag. Psychol. 2010; 25 (6):578–595. [ Google Scholar ]
• Müller T., Niessen C. Self-leadership in the context of part-time teleworking. J. Organ. Behav. 2019; 40 (8):883–898. [ Google Scholar ]
• Neirotti P., Paolucci E., Raguseo E. Mapping the antecedents of telework diffusion: firm-level evidence from Italy. New Technol. Work. Employ. 2013; 28 (1):16–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nguyen T.H.H., Ntim C.G., Malagila J.K. Women on corporate boards and corporate financial and non-financial performance: a systematic literature review and future research agenda. Int. Rev. Financ. Anal. 2018;(71):1–71. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nunes F. Most relevant enablers and constraints influencing the spread of telework in Portugal. New Technol. Work. Employ. 2005; 20 (2):133–149. [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD . 2020. Tackling Coronavirus (Covid-19): Contributing to a Global Effort. Productivity Gains from Teleworking in the post COVID-19 Era: How Can Public Policies Make it Happen? OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19) https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/view/?ref=135_135250-u15liwp4jd&amp;title=Productivity-gains-from-teleworking-in-the-post-COVID-19-era [ Google Scholar ]
• Pérez M.P., Sánchez A.M., de Luis Carnicer M.P. Benefits and barriers of telework: perception differences of human resources managers according to company’s operations strategy. Technovation. 2002; 22 (12):775–783. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peters P., Tijdens K.G., Wetzels C. Employees’ opportunities, preferences, and practices in telecommuting adoption. Inf. Manag. 2004; 41 (4):469–482. [ Google Scholar ]
• Phillips W., Lee H., Ghobadian A., O’Regan N., James P. Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: a systematic review. Group Organ. Manag. 2014; 40 (3):428–461. [ Google Scholar ]
• Piszczek M.M., Berg P. Expanding the boundaries of boundary theory: regulative institutions and work–family role management. Hum. Relat. 2014; 67 (12):1491–1512. Cited in Chung, H. & van der Horst, M. (2018). Women’s employment patterns after childbirth and the perceived access to and use of flexitime and teleworking. Human Relations, 71(1), Special Edition, 1-26. [ Google Scholar ]
• PwC . PwC; USA: 2020. PwC’s US Remote Work Survey. https://www.pwc.com/us/en/library/covid-19/us-remote-work-survey.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Salazar-Concha C., Ficapal-Cusí P., Boada-Grau J., Camacho L.J. Analyzing the evolution of technostress: a science mapping approach. Heliyon. 2021; 7 (4) 1-15. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sewell G., Taskin L. Out of sight, out of mind in a new world of work? Autonomy, control, and spatiotemporal scaling in telework. Organ. Stud. 2015; 36 (11):1507–1529. [ Google Scholar ]
• Simpson L., Daws L., Pini B., Wood L. Rural telework: case studies from the Australian outback. New Technol. Work. Employ. 2003; 18 (2):115–126. [ Google Scholar ]
• Snell S.A. Control theory in strategic human resource management: The mediating effect of administrative information. Acad. Manag. J. 1992; 35 :292–327. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sullivan C. What’s in a name? Definitions and conceptualisations of teleworking and homeworking. New Technol. Work. Employ. 2003; 18 (3):158–165. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sullivan C., Lewis S. Home-based telework, gender, and the synchronization of work and family: perspectives of teleworkers and their Co-residents. Gend. Work. Organ. 2001; 8 (2):123–145. [ Google Scholar ]
• Taskin L., Devos V. Paradoxes from the individualization of human resource management: the case of telework. J. Bus. Ethics. 2005; 62 (1):13–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Taskin L., Bridoux F. Telework: a challenge to knowledge transfer in organizations. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2010; 21 (13):2503–2520. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tranfield D., Denyer D., Smart P. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J. Manag. 2003; 14 (3):207–222. Cited in Laurett, R. & Ferreira, J. J. (2018). Strategy in Nonprofit Organisations: A Systematic Literature Review and Agenda for Future Research. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, (29), 881-897. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vilhelmson B., Thulin E. Who and where are the flexible workers? Exploring the current diffusion of telework in Sweden. New Technol. Work. Employ. 2016; 31 (1):77–96. [ Google Scholar ]
• Virick M., DaSilva N., Arrington K. Moderators of the curvilinear relation between extent of telecommuting and job and life satisfaction: the role of performance outcome orientation and worker type. Hum. Relat. 2010; 63 (1):137–154. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilks L., Billsberry J. Should we do away with teleworking? An examination of whether teleworking can be defined in the new world of work. New Technol. Work. Employ. 2007; 22 (2):168–177. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson M., Greenhil A. Gender and teleworking identities in the risk society: a research agenda. New Technol. Work. Employ. 2004; 19 (3):207–221. [ Google Scholar ]
• Windeler J.B., Chudoba K.M., Sundrup R.Z. Getting away from them all: managing exhaustion from social interaction with telework. J. Organ. Behav. 2017; 38 (7):977–995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Whittle A., Mueller F. “I could be dead for two weeks and my boss would never know”: telework and the politics of representation. New Technol. Work. Employ. 2009; 24 (2):131–143. [ Google Scholar ]

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Computers and Society

Title: the use of chatgpt in higher education: the advantages and disadvantages.

Abstract: Higher education scholars are interested in an artificial intelligence (AI) technology called ChatGPT, which was developed by OpenAI. Whether ChatGPT can improve learning is still a topic of debate among experts. This concise overview of the literature examines the application of ChatGPT in higher education to comprehend and produce high-level instruction. By examining the essential literature, this study seeks to provide a thorough assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of utilizing ChatGPT in higher education settings. But it's crucial to consider both the positive and negative elements. For this rapid review, the researcher searched Google Scholar, Scopus, and others between January 2023 and July 2023 for prior research from various publications. These studies were examined. The study found that employing ChatGPT in higher education is beneficial for a number of reasons. It can provide individualized instruction, and prompt feedback, facilitate access to learning, and promote student interaction. These benefits could improve the learning environment and make it more fun for academics and students. The cons of ChatGPT are equally present. These problems include the inability to comprehend emotions, the lack of social interaction chances, technological limitations, and the dangers of depending too much on ChatGPT for higher education. Higher education should combine ChatGPT with other teaching techniques to provide students and lecturers with a comprehensive education. However, it is crucial to consider the positives, negatives, and moral issues before adopting ChatGPT in the classroom.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .