No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Publishing Literature Reviews
Purpose
This paper aims to (1) identify the different performance drivers (lead indicators) and outcome measures (lag indicators) investigated in the literature concerning the four balanced scorecard (BSC) perspectives in operations management (OM) contexts and (2) understand how performance drivers and outcome measures (and substantiated perspectives) are related.
Design/methodology/approach
We undertake a systematic literature review of the BSC literature in OM journals. From the final sample of 40 articles, performance drivers and outcome measures have been identified, and the relationships amongst them have been synthesised according to the system dynamics approach.
Findings
Findings show (1) the most relevant performance drivers and outcome measures within each BSC perspective, (2) their relationships, (3) how the perspectives are linked through the performance drivers and outcome measures and (4) how the different measures relate systemically. Accordingly, four causal loops amongst identified measures have been built, which – jointly considered – allowed for the creation of a dynamic strategy map for OM.
Originality/value
This study is the first one that provides a comprehensive and holistic view of how the different performance drivers and outcome measures within and between the four BSC perspectives in OM relate systemically, increasing the knowledge and understanding of scholars and practitioners.
Systematic synthesis of qualitative studies is widely used in health and social care. Regardless of the topic area, researchers need to consider several decisions when it comes to the planning and implementation of qualitative synthesis. As junior reviewers, we reflect on potential challenges and pitfalls in planning and conducting a synthesis of qualitative evidence. This article aims to elaborate on a number of key issues in order to provide insights and options on how to avoid or minimize these issues, especially for new reviewers and research students. This article examines difficulties in different stages and presents some examples of how intellectual and technical issues can be approached and resolved, including how to ensure effective identification of the relevant research to answer the review question? What are the potential pitfalls during the screening and evaluation process? The implications of different issues are examined and potential directions are discussed.
p>This article introduces, defines, and describes predatory publishers and journals and shows how they hurt science and victimize individual researchers. Academic evaluation that only counts the number of publications may not provide an accurate measure of scholarly achievement, as journals routinely accept papers with little or no peer review.</p
As an editor-in-chief, I perceive we are approaching a crisis point with literature reviews and the reviewing process. The quality of literature reviews in submitted research is dropping, while there are more submissions with an expectation of faster reviews. The impact is that appropriate sources are not being cited and limited reviewer resources are being stressed on reviewing literature reviews. This paper reviews the literature on literature reviews and discusses how to perform them. I categorize literature review issues into five categories and make recommendations on how to correct literature review issues.
This article presents the results of content analysis of 373 referees' reports of manuscripts submitted to 35 hospitality and tourism journals where rejection or major revision was recommended. Failed manuscripts had multiple shortcomings, with referees identifying an average of 6.2 deficiencies per article. The most common areas where referees found fault with manuscripts were methodology (74% of papers), failure to elucidate significance effectively (60%), poor writing style (58%) and a weak literature review (50%). The study concluded that communications' problems were more common than technical flaws. © 2007 International Council on Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Education.
An urgent need in American health care is improving quality and efficiency while controlling costs. One promising management approach implemented by some leading health care institutions is Lean, a quality improvement philosophy and set of principles originated by the Toyota Motor Company. Health care cases reveal that Lean is as applicable in complex knowledge work as it is in assembly-line manufacturing. When well executed, Lean transforms how an organization works and creates an insatiable quest for improvement. In this article, we define Lean and present 6 principles that constitute the essential dynamic of Lean management: attitude of continuous improvement, value creation, unity of purpose, respect for front-line workers, visual tracking, and flexible regimentation. Health care case studies illustrate each principle. The goal of this article is to provide a template for health care leaders to use in considering the implementation of the Lean management system or in assessing the current state of implementation in their organizations.
Our research addresses the confusion and inconsistency associated with “lean production.” We attempt to clarify the semantic confusion surrounding lean production by conducting an extensive literature review using a historical evolutionary perspective in tracing its main components. We identify a key set of measurement items by charting the linkages between measurement instruments that have been used to measure its various components from the past literature, and using a rigorous, two-stage empirical method and data from a large set of manufacturing firms, we narrow the list of items selected to represent lean production to 48 items, empirically identifying 10 underlying components. In doing so, we map the operational space corresponding to conceptual space surrounding lean production. Configuration theory provides the theoretical underpinnings and helps to explain the synergistic relationships among its underlying components.
Lean production not only successfully challenged the accepted mass production practices in the automotive industry, significantly shifting the trade-off between productivity and quality, but it also led to a rethinking of a wide range of manufacturing and service operations beyond the high-volume repetitive manufacturing environment. The book ‘The machine that changed the World’ that introduced the term ‘lean production’ in 1990 has become one of the most widely cited references in operations management over the last decade. Despite the fact that the just-in-time (JIT) manufacturing concept had been known for almost a decade prior, the book played a key role in disseminating the concept outside of Japan. While the technical aspects of lean production have been widely discussed, this paper sets out to investigate the evolution of the research at the MIT International Motor Vehicle Program (IMVP) that led to the conception of the term ‘lean production’. Furthermore, the paper investigates why – despite the pre-existing knowledge of JIT – the program was so influential in promoting the lean production concept. Based on iterating series of interviews with the key authors, contributors and researchers of the time, this paper presents an historical account of the research that led to the formulation and dissemination of one of the most influential manufacturing paradigms of recent times.
To describe and discuss the process used to write a narrative review of the literature for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Publication of narrative overviews of the literature should be standardized to increase their objectivity.
In the past decade numerous changes in research methodology pertaining to reviews of the literature have occurred. These changes necessitate authors of review articles to be familiar with current standards in the publication process.
Narrative overview of the literature synthesizing the findings of literature retrieved from searches of computerized databases, hand searches, and authoritative texts.
An overview of the use of three types of reviews of the literature is presented. Step by step instructions for how to conduct and write a narrative overview utilizing a 'best-evidence synthesis' approach are discussed, starting with appropriate preparatory work and ending with how to create proper illustrations. Several resources for creating reviews of the literature are presented and a narrative overview critical appraisal worksheet is included. A bibliography of other useful reading is presented in an appendix.
Narrative overviews can be a valuable contribution to the literature if prepared properly. New and experienced authors wishing to write a narrative overview should find this article useful in constructing such a paper and carrying out the research process. It is hoped that this article will stimulate scholarly dialog amongst colleagues about this research design and other complex literature review methods.
Purpose
Literature reviews are essential tools for uncovering prevalent knowledge gaps, unifying fragmented bodies of scholarship, and taking stock of the cumulative evidence in a field of inquiry. Yet, successfully producing rigorous, coherent, thought-provoking, and practically relevant review articles represents an extremely complex and challenging endeavor. The purpose of this paper is to uncover the key requirements for expanding literature reviews’ reach within and across study domains and provide useful guidelines to prospective authors interested in generating this type of scientific output.
Design/methodology/approach
Drawing upon the authors’ own experience of producing literature reviews and a scrutiny of review papers in major management journals, the authors develop an end-to-end process of writing and publishing review articles of high potential impact.
Findings
The advanced process is broken down into two phases and seven sequential steps, each of them being described in terms of key actions, required skill sets, best practices, metrics of assessment and expected outcomes.
Originality/value
By tapping into the inherent complexity of review articles and demystifying the intricacies associated with pursuing this type of scientific research, the authors seek to inspire a wealth of new influential surveys of specialized literature.
This study investigated how candidates claimed to have made an original contribution to knowledge in the conclusion chapters of 100 PhD theses. Documentary analysis was used to discover how this was explained within theses at selected universities in three countries. No other documents were accessed and neither were candidates, supervisors or examiners contacted. The evidence showed that the function of Discussion and Conclusion chapters was interpreted differently between disciplines and national academic traditions. The relative size of conclusion chapters to other chapters was consistently small. Explicit claims for originality and contributing to knowledge appeared in 54 per cent of theses thus meeting their universities' stated criteria for PhD awards but were not adequately explained in 46 per cent of theses. Introduction As doctoral supervisors and examiners we have recognised an absence of research-based literature on the chapter of conclusions in doctoral theses. Thus, how doctoral candidates claimed to have made an original contribution to knowledge had not been adequately explained. Doctoral theses are characterised by making original contributions to knowledge. In their opening chapter(s) candidates may state that their research will make an original contribution to knowledge as expressed intentions. The claim that such intentions were achieved usually appears in conclusion chapters. Conclusion chapters also include factual, conceptual and secondary conclusions, agendas for future research, critiques of the research and, if
This essay starts with a discussion of the literature review, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework as components of a manuscript. This discussion includes similarities and distinctions among these components and their relation to other sections of a manuscript such as the problem statement, discussion, and implications. The essay concludes with an overview of the literature review, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework as separate types of manuscripts. Understanding similarities and differences among the literature review, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework can help novice and experienced researchers in organizing, conceptualizing, and conducting their research, whether qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods.
The article presents a critique of the discourse of ‘systematic review’ in education, as developed and promoted by the EPPI‐Centre at the University of London. Based on a close reading of the exhortatory and instructional literature and 30 published reviews, it argues that the approach degrades the status of reading and writing as scholarly activities, tends to result in reviews with limited capacity to inform policy or practice, and constitutes a threat to quality and critique in scholarship and research. The claims that are made for the transparency, accountability and trustworthiness of systematic review do not therefore, it is argued, stand up to scrutiny. The article concludes that systematic review is animated, not just by dissatisfaction with the uncertainties of educational research (a dissatisfaction that it shares with the ‘evidence‐informed movement’ with which it is associated), but by a fear of language itself.
The integrative literature review is a distinctive form of research that generates new knowledge about the topic reviewed. Little guidance is available on how to write an integrative literature review. This article discusses how to organize and write an integrative literature review and cites examples of published integrative literature reviews that illustrate how this type of research has made substantive contributions to the knowledge base of human resource development.
As interest in qualitative research has grown over the past decade in scholarly adult education publications, it has become increasingly varied in its application. However, there are no standards for reporting qualitative data. This poses a confusing dilemma for the emerging adult education scholar interested in submitting qualitative research to scholarly journals. One rarely investigated resource that offers insight into this challenge is peer reviewer assessments of qualitative research. The purpose of this study is to identify characteristics of publishable qualitative research to a major international adult and continuing education journal through an in-depth analysis of peer review comments. A grounded theory approach was used to design a content analysis of reviewer comments. From the findings, six major themes emerged as essential to the publication of qualitative research: What is the purpose of the study? How does the purpose build on previous research? How thorough is the methodology? How are the findings presented? What are the contributions, implications, and significance of the study? Is the manuscript organized, edited and well formatted? This article further guides the reader with explanations of what it means to publish quality qualitative research.
With healthcare, Lean Thinking encounters a world, not devoid of value, but awash with sophisticated and mutually unconnected concepts of value.
Given a shortage of systematic analysis in the literature, this paper provides a preliminary analysis of areas where the read-across from other sectors to healthcare is relatively well understood, based on a broad review of its impact on care delivery. It further proposes areas where conceptual development is needed. In particular, healthcare, with its many measures of value, presents an unusual challenge to the central Lean driver of value to the customer.
We conclude that there is scope for methodological development, perhaps by defining three themes associated with value-the operational, the clinical and the experiential.