# Research Skills

# Searching for Information

  
Ready to move beyond typing random words into search engines?

# How to search the library's catalogue (OPAC)

{{@1}}

# Developing a search strategy

## Overview

Searching for academic literature is different from using Google. A simple web search guesses what you mean; academic databases match your exact words. This means you must build a structured search strategy to ensure you find the most relevant literature without missing crucial studies. This guide outlines how to translate your research question into a database search.

<p class="callout info">**Writing a systematic literature review?** See our advanced guide on [Conducting Your Search](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/conducting-your-search) for instructions on building complex concept blocks and testing search strings.</p>

## Prerequisites

Before building a search strategy, you must have completed:

- Step 1: Defined your research question.
- Step 2: Gathered background information and academic keywords.

## Step 1: Identify Your Key Concepts

Do not type your entire research question into a library database. Instead, break it down into its core concepts (the most important nouns). Ignore instructional words (like "assess" or "describe") and relationship words (like "impact" or "effect").

**Example Research Question:**

> "How do recent European Union regulations impact the marketing strategies of fast fashion retailers?"

**Key Concepts:**

- Concept 1: European Union regulations
- Concept 2: Marketing strategies
- Concept 3: Fast fashion

## Step 2: Brainstorm Alternative Search Terms

Authors use different words to describe the same idea. If you only search for "fast fashion," you will miss articles that use the term "disposable clothing." For each concept, list synonyms, broader terms, and narrower terms.

<table id="bkmrk-concept-1%3A-regulatio"><thead><tr><th>Concept 1: Regulations</th><th>Concept 2: Marketing</th><th>Concept 3: Fast Fashion</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>European Union</td><td>Marketing strategy</td><td>Fast fashion</td></tr><tr><td>EU law</td><td>Advertising</td><td>Disposable clothing</td></tr><tr><td>Legislation</td><td>Public relations</td><td>Ultra-fast fashion</td></tr><tr><td>Policy</td><td>Branding</td><td>Apparel industry</td></tr></tbody></table>

### Using Truncation and Wildcards

Save time by searching for multiple word endings at once using an asterisk (`*`). This is called truncation.

- Searching for `market*` will find: *market*, *markets*, *marketing*, *marketers*.
- Searching for `sustainab*` will find: *sustainable*, *sustainability*.

## Step 3: Combine Your Terms with Boolean Operators

[![boolean operators](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/uploads/images/gallery/2022-02/scaled-1680-/s-andornot-1.png)](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/uploads/images/gallery/2022-02/s-andornot-1.png)

Library databases use three commands—**AND**, **OR**, and **NOT**—to connect your search terms. These must usually be typed in ALL CAPS.

1. **OR (Expands your search):** Connects synonyms. It tells the database to find articles containing *any* of the words. 
    - *Example:* "fast fashion" **OR** "apparel industry"
2. **AND (Narrows your search):** Connects different concepts. It tells the database to find articles containing *all* of the words. 
    - *Example:* "fast fashion" **AND** marketing
3. **NOT (Excludes terms):** Removes irrelevant results. Use with caution, as it might remove good articles that happen to mention the excluded word. 
    - *Example:* "fast fashion" **NOT** footwear

### Building the Search String

Use brackets to group your synonyms (your **OR** terms) before connecting them with **AND**.

> ("fast fashion" **OR** "apparel industry") **AND** (marketing **OR** advertising) **AND** ("European Union" **OR** EU)

## Step 4: Choose the Right Tool

Now that you have a search string, you need to decide where to run it. Different tools hold different types of information.

- **The Library OPAC (Catalogue):** Use this to find physical books, e-books, and architectural magazines held locally at Whitecliffe. It is best for broad overviews and foundational theories.
- **Academic Databases (e.g., EBSCO, JSTOR):** Use these to find peer-reviewed journal articles. They are essential for finding the most current, specific research, particularly for your BA thesis.
- **Google Scholar:** A useful supplement to library databases, but it lacks the advanced filtering options of EBSCO and may hit paywalls. (If you hit a paywall, always check if the Whitecliffe Library has access).

<p class="callout info">**Library Access:** Remember to use the [EZProxy Bookmarklet](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/journals-journal-articles/page/bau-ezproxy-bookmarklet) to access paywalled articles from off-campus.</p>

## Step 5: Search, Review, and Adjust (Iterative Searching)

Searching is an iterative process. You will rarely get perfect results on your first try.

- **Too many results?** Add another concept using **AND**, or use database filters to limit the publication date (e.g., the last 5 years) or language.
- **Too few results?** Remove a concept, or add more synonyms using **OR**.
- **Wrong results?** Review the titles and abstracts of the first few results. Look for the keywords the authors used, add them to your search strategy, and try again.

## Using Generative AI to Design Searches

Generative AI can help you brainstorm synonyms and structure your Boolean strings. You can prompt an AI with: "I am researching the impact of EU regulations on fast fashion marketing. Generate a list of academic synonyms for these concepts and format them into a Boolean search string."

Always review the AI's string before using it, as it may include unnecessary punctuation or overly complex terms. For more guidance, see [Enhancing Search Queries with AI](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/link/61#bkmrk-enhancing-search-que).

## Next Steps

Once you have found a selection of relevant books and articles, you must evaluate them for academic credibility before deciding to use them in your writing.

**Continue to:** [How to evaluate academic sources](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/the-research-process/page/evaluate-your-sources "Evaluate Your Sources")

---

<sub>Adapted from *My Learning Essentials* resources developed by the University of Manchester Library and licensed under CC BY-NC 3.0.</sub>

# Advanced Search Techniques

<p class="callout info">For more information on using generative AI to design searches, see [Enhancing Search Queries with AI](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/link/61#bkmrk-enhancing-search-que).</p>

## Keyword

Generally keywords are the default for search queries, and it's important to know how a keyword search works.

Keyword searches will return results in which the keyword appears anywhere in the record, whether title, description, author, etc. A search for multiple keywords will return results in which both keywords appear anywhere in the record, not necessarily beside each other.

<p class="callout info">Example: **industrial design** would return all results that include the terms industrial and design irrespective of where the terms were in relation to each other</p>

## Grouping keywords with quotation marks

An easy way to group keywords is to enclose them in quotation marks. This can be particularly helpful when searching for specific titles of items.

<p class="callout info">Example: **'industrial design'** would only return results where industrial and design were located beside each other</p>

## Boolean Operators (AND, OR, NOT)

<section id="bkmrk-boolean-operators"><span style="color:#222222;font-size:3.425em;font-weight:400;">[![s-andornot-1.png](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/uploads/images/gallery/2022-02/scaled-1680-/s-andornot-1.png)](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/uploads/images/gallery/2022-02/s-andornot-1.png)</span>

#### AND

Use the Boolean operator AND to narrow search terms more effectively.

<p class="callout info">Example: **Bauhaus AND Albers** would return results that include **both** Bauhaus and Albers</p>

#### OR

Use the Boolean operator OR to combine search terms.

The Boolean operator OR is helpful for search terms with varying spelling, e.g. o/ou or s/z in English; or when looking for a search term in different languages:

<p class="callout info">Example: **'labor policy' OR 'labour policy'** would return results containing **either** labor or labour.</p>

<p class="callout info">Example: **'industrial design' OR Industriedesign** would return results containing **either** industrial design or Industriedesign</p>

#### NOT

Use the Boolean operator NOT to exclude results.

<p class="callout info">Example: **bauhaus NOT band** would return only results which include the term bauhaus but do **not** include the term band</p>

</section>## Wildcards

Wildcards are used in search terms to represent one or more other characters.

The two most commonly used wildcards are:

An asterisk (\*) may be used to specify any number of characters. It is typically used at the end of a root word, when it is referred to as "truncation." This is great when you want to search for variable endings of a root word.

<p class="callout info">Example: searching for librar\* would tell the database to look for all possible endings to that root. Results will include library, libraries, librarian, librarians or librarianship.</p>

A question mark (?) may be used to represent a single character, anywhere in the word. It is most useful when there are variable spellings for a word, and you want to search for all variants at once.

<p class="callout info">Example: Searching for colo?r would return both color and colour.</p>

<p class="callout warning">Wildcard characters can vary among search providers</p>

# Making the most of Generative AI (ChatGPT etc.)

### Overview

Generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini, and Claude can assist with many parts of the research and writing process. They can help you brainstorm, draft, refine prompts, and structure search queries. **They can also produce convincing but inaccurate content, fabricate sources, and reflect biases present in their training data.**

This guide helps you use these tools critically and responsibly. It covers:

- what generative AI can and cannot do reliably
- how to write effective prompts
- how to use AI to assist with database searching
- how to cite AI-generated content
- what risks to watch for

**Before you use any AI tool in your coursework, check your course or assignment guidelines.** Policies vary by instructor, department, and faculty. If the policy is not stated, ask.

---

### What generative AI does and does not do

Generative AI tools produce text (and sometimes images or code) by drawing on patterns learned during training on large datasets. How they handle information at the point of use varies by tool and by how you access it.

**Some tools work from training data alone.** These have a knowledge cutoff: they cannot access recent publications, current events, or library resources. Their outputs reflect what was in their training data, nothing more.

**Other tools can retrieve external content** before generating a response, a technique often called retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). Tools such as Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini, and certain modes of ChatGPT can search the web or draw on connected sources. Some research-oriented tools (Perplexity, Elicit, Scite) are designed specifically to retrieve and summarize scholarly content.

Retrieval capability does not make a tool reliable. Even tools with web access can:

- misrepresent, misquote, or selectively paraphrase the sources they retrieve
- generate citations to sources that look real but are wrong in detail or do not exist
- present a confident synthesis that misses important contrary evidence
- reflect biases present in whatever sources they surface or were trained on

In practice, you should not assume that because a tool "searched the web" its output is accurate or that its citations are correct. Verify any source an AI tool mentions before citing it, regardless of which tool you used.

Other risks apply across most current tools:

- **Bias:** AI outputs reflect assumptions and gaps in training data. Be alert to skewed perspectives or missing viewpoints.
- **Privacy:** Many tools may use your inputs to improve future models. Do not enter personal data, confidential information, or unpublished research unless you have confirmed the tool's data handling policy.
- **Academic integrity:** Undisclosed AI use may violate institutional policies, regardless of which tool you used or how.

If you are unsure how a specific tool handles data or retrieval, check its documentation or ask a librarian.

---

### Citation and Attribution

Citation practices for generative AI are still evolving. Each major style has issued guidance, but all note that their recommendations may change. **Always check your assignment requirements and consult with your instructor if you are unsure whether and how to disclose AI use.**

The general principle across styles is: **if you use AI-generated content in your work, disclose it.** This applies to quoted or paraphrased text, images, and data.

#### [Citing Generative AI: APA](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/link/62#bkmrk-generative-artificia)

#### [Citing Generative AI: Chicago](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/link/63#bkmrk-generative-artificia)

---

### Writing Prompts

<details id="bkmrk-expand-crafting-effe"><summary>Expand</summary>

Crafting effective prompts for a Generative AI tool is crucial for obtaining high-quality outputs. This guide provides a concise overview and tips to enhance your prompts:

**Be Specific:**

Generic prompts yield generic results. Specify the type, genre, audience, length, and tone for better outcomes.

> Create a visually engaging poster promoting a sustainable design exhibition for a design-savvy audience. Keep it concise and modern.
> 
> Draft a concise business proposal outlining key strategies for a sustainable product launch in the current market. Target audience: investors and industry professionals.

**"Act as if..." Approach:**

Request the AI to assume a certain role, process, or object. This provides context and refines responses, e.g., "Act as if you are my personal trainer" when seeking recipe suggestions.

> Act as if you are a design consultant. Provide creative suggestions for enhancing user experience in a mobile app focusing on simplicity and aesthetics.
> 
> Act as if you are a marketing strategist. Develop a marketing plan for a new business venture, considering target demographics and competition.

**Specify Output Format:**

Clearly state the desired output format, such as code, stories, reports, etc. Use phrases like "Present this in the form of..." or "Create a \[output format\] about/that contains..."

> Design an infographic illustrating the evolution of graphic design trends in the last decade. Present this in the form of a visually appealing and informative graphic.
> 
> Compose a market analysis report on emerging e-commerce trends. Present this in the form of a concise and visually appealing slide deck for a business presentation.

**Use "Do" and "Don't":**

Save time and improve results by specifying preferences. For instance, "Create a recipe that includes tomatoes, chicken, and carbs, but exclude chili peppers and wheat-containing ingredients."

> Develop a logo for a startup specializing in sustainable packaging solutions. Do incorporate eco-friendly elements and vibrant colors. Don't use overly complex designs.
> 
> Draft a proposal for a business event sponsorship. Do highlight the potential benefits for sponsors. Don't include excessive jargon or technical details.

**Provide Examples:**

Offer a sample sentence or paragraph for the AI to reference, avoiding copyrighted material. This helps shape the desired output.

> Provide a description of a modern furniture design studio. For example, discuss the studio's philosophy, materials used, and signature design elements.
> 
> Describe a successful case study of a business implementing sustainable practices. For example, highlight the specific strategies adopted and the resulting positive impact on the company's image and profitability.

**Consider Tone and Audience:**

Specify the audience and desired tone. For example, "Give me ideas for a funny and heartwarming best man's speech suitable for a family audience."

> Generate ideas for a creative pitch introducing a new design tool to fellow design students. Ensure the tone is inspiring and resonates with the enthusiasm of budding designers.
> 
> Develop content for a promotional video targeting potential investors in a tech startup. Ensure the tone is professional, highlighting the innovation and market potential of the product.

**Build on Previous Prompts:**

Start with a basic question and refine it over time. Adjust wording, tone, or add more context to guide the AI toward the desired output.

> What are the key elements to consider in designing an interactive and user-friendly website? Build on this by providing examples relevant to design students' projects.
> 
> Begin with a basic outline for a business plan. Now, add more details about market analysis, financial projections, and potential challenges faced by startups in the current economic landscape.

**Correct Mistakes and Give Feedback:**

Treat the AI like a colleague, providing feedback on useful parts and areas for improvement. Correct any mistakes to enhance future responses.

> The design concept is great, but it needs more emphasis on sustainability. Could you provide alternative color schemes and materials that align with eco-friendly principles?
> 
> The market analysis is insightful. However, it lacks information on potential risks. Please incorporate a section discussing potential challenges and mitigation strategies.

**Ask for Prompt Creation Assistance:**

If unsure how to formulate a prompt, ask the AI for help in creating one. Seek guidance by asking, "What should I ask you to help me write a blog post about AI?"

> I'm brainstorming ideas for a design blog post. What prompt should I use to generate content about the impact of minimalist design on user experience?
> 
> I need to create a persuasive pitch for a business idea. How can I structure a prompt to gather information on effective strategies for presenting market potential and profitability?

**Inquire about Additional Needs:**

Conclude prompts by asking, "Tell me what else you need to do this" to fill in any gaps and enhance the AI's ability to generate better outputs.

> I want to design a portfolio showcasing my best work. Tell me what else you need to generate prompts that will guide me in creating a visually appealing and impactful portfolio.
> 
> I'm preparing a business report on the future of e-commerce. Tell me what additional details or data you need to generate prompts that will help me gather comprehensive insights for the report.

</details>---

### Enhancing Search Queries with AI

<details id="bkmrk-expand-constructing-"><summary>Expand</summary>

Constructing [advanced search queries](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/advanced-search-techniques) can be difficult, even for advanced researchers. Research databases use structured query syntax: Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), wildcards, and phrase searching. Constructing complex queries takes practice. Generative AI can help you build an initial query structure based on your research question.

Prompt:

> <div class="flex-shrink-0 flex flex-col relative items-end"><div><div class="pt-0.5"><div class="gizmo-shadow-stroke flex h-6 w-6 items-center justify-center overflow-hidden rounded-full"><div class="relative flex">Given the research question below, construct a search query to be used in a research database that uses synonyms and employs nesting, booleans (AND, OR, NOT) and wildcards (*):</div><div class="relative flex">  
> </div></div></div></div></div>"How does critical design contribute to the reimagining of urban spaces, specifically focusing on its impact on community engagement, sustainability, and the overall user experience in the architectural design process?"

Response:

> ("critical design" OR "speculative design" OR "design fiction") AND   
> ("urban spaces" OR "city planning" OR "urban development") AND   
> ("community engagement" OR "public participation" OR "stakeholder involvement") AND   
> ("sustainability" OR "environmental impact" OR "ecological design") AND   
> ("user experience" OR "human-centered design" OR "occupant satisfaction") AND   
> ("architectural design process" OR "built environment design" OR "architectural innovation")

**Important:** Always test AI-generated search queries in the actual database and adjust them. Different databases use different syntax, and the AI does not know which database you are using or what terms it indexes. Treat AI-generated queries as a starting draft, not a final product.

</details>---

### Hallucinations and fabricated citations

Generative AI tools frequently produce inaccurate or entirely invented citations. This is sometimes called "hallucination": the AI generates plausible-sounding but false information. This is a well-documented limitation, not an occasional bug.

When asked to produce a list of sources, an AI tool may return:

- real books or articles with incorrect authors, titles, or dates
- titles that do not exist at all
- real titles that are unrelated to the topic you asked about

This happens inconsistently. A single response may include both real and fabricated citations, with no indication of which is which.

**Do not cite any source from an AI output without first verifying it exists**, using your library catalog, a database such as Scopus or Web of Science, or Google Scholar. Submitting fabricated citations in academic work is a serious integrity issue, regardless of whether the AI produced them.

The same caution applies to AI-generated factual claims, statistics, and quotations. These should always be verified against a primary or reliable secondary source before you use them.

Prompt:

> Please provide a list of books, including author, about architecture in extreme or adverse environments.

[![ai-hal.png](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/uploads/images/gallery/2025-04/ai-hal.png)](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/uploads/images/gallery/2023-12/ai-hal.png)

In the next below, ChatGPT was provided with the following prompt:

> Please provide two to three paragraphs with in-text citations about architecture in extreme or adverse environments.

The only reference returned that appears to be real is the first, though the author seems to be incorrect. The others are not real.

[![ai-hal II.png](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/uploads/images/gallery/2023-12/scaled-1680-/ai-hal-ii.png)](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/uploads/images/gallery/2023-12/ai-hal-ii.png)

# Open Access (OA)

## What Is Open Access?

**Open Access (OA)** refers to the free, immediate, online availability of research outputs such as journal articles or books, combined with the rights to use these outputs fully in the digital environment. Unlike traditional subscription-based journals, OA content is open to all readers with no access fees. Most open access publications are released under [Creative Commons](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/) licenses, allowing for broader reuse and distribution while maintaining proper attribution.

Open access is not a fringe movement: it is the direction in which scholarly publishing is heading worldwide. Berlin itself is a birthplace of the modern OA movement — the [Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities](https://openaccess.mpg.de/Berlin-Declaration) (2003) remains one of the foundational documents of the global open access movement and has been signed by hundreds of research institutions. As a holder of the [Open Library Badge](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/about-the-library/page/open-library-badge), the Klingemann Library is committed to advancing these principles at Whitecliffe.

<iframe height="314" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/L5rVH1KGBCY?feature=shared" title="What is Open Access? (video introduction)" width="560"></iframe>

---

## Models of Open Access

Open access is commonly described using a colour system. The four models most relevant to researchers at Whitecliffe are summarised below.

<table id="bkmrk-comparison-of-the-fo" style="width:100%;"><caption>**Comparison of the four primary open access models**</caption><thead><tr><th scope="col" style="width:16.9272%;">Model</th><th scope="col" style="width:23.1223%;">How It Works</th><th scope="col" style="width:36.3412%;">Who Pays?</th><th scope="col" style="width:23.4858%;">When Is It Open?</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td style="width:16.9272%;">**Gold OA**</td><td style="width:23.1223%;">Published in a fully open access journal. Peer-reviewed and freely available at the point of publication.</td><td style="width:36.3412%;">Often an Article Processing Charge (APC) paid by the author, institution, or funder. Many Gold OA journals, however, charge no fees at all (see Diamond OA).</td><td style="width:23.4858%;">Immediately upon publication.</td></tr><tr><td style="width:16.9272%;">**Green OA**</td><td style="width:23.1223%;">The author self-archives a version of the work (preprint or accepted manuscript) in an institutional or disciplinary repository.</td><td style="width:36.3412%;">Free for the author. The article may also be published in a subscription journal.</td><td style="width:23.4858%;">Immediately, or after an embargo period set by the publisher. Check policies via [Sherpa/Romeo](https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/).</td></tr><tr><td style="width:16.9272%;">**Diamond OA**</td><td style="width:23.1223%;">A special form of Gold OA: the journal charges no fees to authors *or* readers. Typically community-driven and non-commercial.</td><td style="width:36.3412%;">Funded by institutions, scholarly societies, or volunteers — not by authors.</td><td style="width:23.4858%;">Immediately upon publication.</td></tr><tr><td style="width:16.9272%;">**Hybrid OA**</td><td style="width:23.1223%;">Individual articles are made open access within a subscription journal, usually by paying an APC. The rest of the journal remains behind a paywall.</td><td style="width:36.3412%;">An APC paid by the author or institution (often higher than in fully OA journals).</td><td style="width:23.4858%;">Immediately for the paid article; the journal itself remains subscription-based.</td></tr></tbody></table>

[![csm_OA_Wege_eng_0f928b6521.png](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/uploads/images/gallery/2026-03/scaled-1680-/csm-oa-wege-eng-0f928b6521.png)](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/uploads/images/gallery/2026-03/csm-oa-wege-eng-0f928b6521.png)  
<sub>Source: open-access.network (2021), Pathways of Open Access ([CC BY 4.0 International](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0))</sub>

<details id="bkmrk-a-note-on-hybrid-oa-"><summary>**A note on Hybrid OA and “double dipping”**</summary>

Hybrid journals collect subscription fees from libraries *and* APCs from individual authors who choose to publish open access. Critics call this “double dipping” because the publisher is paid twice for the same content. If you are considering a hybrid journal, check whether your institution or funder has a transformative agreement with the publisher that offsets the APC. In Germany, the [DEAL agreements](https://deal-operations.de/en/) with Wiley and Springer Nature are examples of such arrangements, though Whitecliffe is not currently a DEAL participant.

</details>---

## Why Open Access Matters at Whitecliffe

Open access offers concrete advantages for researchers and students at a small, international institution:

- **Visibility for early-career researchers.** OA publications are indexed more broadly and cited more frequently, helping faculty and graduates at a smaller university build their academic profiles.
- **Thesis discoverability.** When students deposit their theses in the [Whitecliffe Institutional Repository](https://repository.berlin-international.de), the work becomes findable worldwide, strengthening both the student's portfolio and the university's research profile.
- **Equitable access.** Many of our students and partners are based in countries where institutional subscriptions are limited. OA ensures that everyone can read and build on Whitecliffe research.
- **Funder compliance.** An increasing number of research funders, including the European Commission (Horizon Europe) and the DFG, require that publicly funded research be published in open access.
- **Portfolio building for design faculty.** OA repositories and platforms allow designers and architects to share visual research, project documentation, and creative work alongside traditional text publications.

---

## Finding Open Access Resources

### Via the Library's Catalog

Many open access [items](https://library.whitecliffe.de/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=6001) in our catalog can be identified by the OA symbol [![Open Access logo](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/uploads/images/gallery/2024-12/scaled-1680-/32px-open-access-logo-plos-white-svg1.png)](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/uploads/images/gallery/2024-12/32px-open-access-logo-plos-white-svg1.png). Thanks to enrichment data from the [Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB)](https://www.doabooks.org/) and the [Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)](https://doaj.org/), these resources link directly to the open access full text, ensuring immediate access without restrictions. This is part of our broader commitment to openness, as recognised by the [Open Library Badge](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/about-the-library/page/open-library-badge).

### Via the Research Database Index

The library's [Research Database Index](https://library.whitecliffe.de/cgi-bin/koha/opac-page.pl?page_id=24) lists all research databases available to the Whitecliffe community. Many of these include open access content alongside subscription resources. When searching for journal articles, try combining subscription databases with the open access discovery tools below to ensure you find the broadest range of sources.

### Open Access Discovery Tools

<details id="bkmrk-recommended-tools-fo"><summary>**Recommended tools for finding OA content**</summary>

- [**Unpaywall**](https://unpaywall.org/) — A free browser extension (Firefox, Chrome) that automatically finds legal open access versions of articles as you browse. Install it once and it works in the background on publisher sites and databases.
- [**CORE**](https://core.ac.uk/) — Aggregates millions of open access papers from repositories and journals worldwide. Useful for cross-disciplinary searching.
- [**OpenAlex**](https://openalex.org/) — A free, open bibliometric tool that indexes scholarly works, authors, institutions, and venues. Useful for mapping the open access landscape in your field.
- [**DOAJ**](https://doaj.org/) — The authoritative directory of quality-controlled open access journals. Search by subject to find suitable journals in design, business, and related fields.
- [**DOAB**](https://www.doabooks.org/) — The equivalent directory for peer-reviewed open access books and monographs.
- [**BASE (Bielefeld Academic Search Engine)**](https://www.base-search.net/) — A powerful search engine for scholarly open access resources, with advanced filtering by document type, language, and subject.
- [**Open Access Button**](https://openaccessbutton.org/) — Helps locate free, legal versions of research articles. If no OA version exists, it can send an automated request to the author.

</details>---

## Open Access Resources by Discipline

The following resources are particularly relevant to the disciplines taught at Whitecliffe. For a full list of all databases available to the Whitecliffe community, consult the [Research Database Index](https://library.whitecliffe.de/cgi-bin/koha/opac-page.pl?page_id=24).

<details id="bkmrk-design-and-architect"><summary>**Design and Architecture**</summary>

- [**CumInCAD**](http://cumincad.org/) — Cumulative Index of Computer Aided Architectural Design. An open access bibliographic database covering publications in the field of computer-aided design in architecture, including full-text links.
- [**DOAJ: Architecture journals**](https://doaj.org/search/journals?query=architecture&type=journals) — Search the DOAJ specifically for peer-reviewed open access journals in architecture and design.
- [**DOAJ: Design journals**](https://doaj.org/search/journals?query=design&type=journals) — Filtered search for design-related OA journals.
- [**Figshare**](https://figshare.com/) — A general-purpose repository well suited for depositing design artefacts, images, portfolios, presentations, and datasets alongside traditional text outputs.
- [**Are.na**](https://www.are.na/) — A collaborative research and bookmarking platform popular in the design community for sharing visual references and research collections.

</details><details id="bkmrk-business-and-managem"><summary>**Business and Management**</summary>

- [**SSRN (Social Science Research Network)**](https://papers.ssrn.com/) — A major preprint server for the social sciences and business research. Researchers can upload working papers and preprints for immediate open access.
- [**EconBiz**](https://www.econbiz.de/) — A search portal for economics and business studies maintained by the ZBW (German National Library of Economics). Includes open access content and links to full texts.
- [**RePEc (Research Papers in Economics)**](https://ideas.repec.org/) — A decentralised database of working papers, journal articles, and software in economics and related fields, with extensive open access content.
- [**DOAJ: Business and management journals**](https://doaj.org/search/journals?query=business+management&type=journals) — Filtered DOAJ search for quality-assessed OA journals in business, management, and organisational studies.

</details>---

## How to Publish Open Access

Publishing open access can seem complex, but the steps below provide a practical roadmap. Faculty members are encouraged to contact the library at any stage for personalised support.

### 1. Identify Suitable Journals or Publishers

Use [**Sherpa/Romeo**](https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/) to check publisher policies on open access. This platform provides detailed information about copyright and self-archiving policies for thousands of journals, helping you identify where and how you can publish your work openly. You can also search the [DOAJ](https://doaj.org/) to find quality-assessed open access journals in your discipline, and consult the [Research Database Index](https://library.whitecliffe.de/cgi-bin/koha/opac-page.pl?page_id=24) for an overview of all databases available to the Whitecliffe community.

### 2. Deposit Work in Repositories

Repositories are essential for Green OA. Whitecliffe's [**Institutional Repository**](https://repository.berlin-international.de) is now live and accepting deposits. Faculty members can deposit accepted manuscripts, preprints, working papers, and other research outputs directly. Students should consult the [thesis submission guide](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/faqs/page/how-to-submit-your-thesis-to-the-bi-insitutional-repository) for instructions on depositing completed theses.

Additional repository options include:

- [**Zenodo**](https://zenodo.org/) — A general-purpose open repository hosted by CERN and funded by the European Commission. Accepts any research output (papers, datasets, presentations, posters, software) and assigns a DOI.
- [**re3data.org**](https://www.re3data.org/) — A comprehensive registry of research data repositories across disciplines. Use it to find the right repository for your datasets.

<details id="bkmrk-what-is-the-zweitver"><summary>**What is the Zweitveröffentlichungsrecht (secondary publication right)?**</summary>

Under German copyright law (§ 38(4) UrhG), authors of scholarly articles resulting from publicly funded research may make the accepted manuscript version publicly available twelve months after initial publication, regardless of any exclusive rights granted to the publisher. This right applies to articles in periodical publications that appear at least twice per year, and it cannot be waived by contract. It provides a straightforward legal basis for Green OA self-archiving in the [Whitecliffe Institutional Repository](https://repository.berlin-international.de). For further details, see the [open-access.network guide on the Zweitveröffentlichungsrecht](https://open-access.network/en/information/legal-issues/secondary-publication-right).

</details>### 3. Disseminate Your Research

After publication, make sure your work reaches the widest possible audience:

- [**Unpaywall**](https://unpaywall.org/) — Ensure your OA deposit is discoverable. Unpaywall harvests from repositories, so depositing in the Whitecliffe repository or Zenodo means your work will be found automatically.
- [**ORCID**](https://orcid.org/) — Register for a free ORCID iD to link all your publications to a single, persistent author identifier. This helps avoid confusion with other researchers who share your name.
- **Academic social networks** — Platforms such as ResearchGate or Academia.edu can increase visibility, but uploading publisher PDFs to these platforms may violate copyright. Always check with [Sherpa/Romeo](https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/) first, and prefer depositing in a proper repository.

### 4. Create and Share Open Educational Resources (OERs)

Faculty members can contribute to open education by developing and sharing teaching materials. Platforms include:

- [**OER Commons**](https://www.oercommons.org/) — A resource library for finding and contributing openly licensed educational materials.
- [**twillo**](https://www.twillo.de/) — A German OER portal for higher education, supported by the Stifterverband. Particularly relevant for sharing materials in the German academic context.
- [**Whitecliffe LibGuide on OER**](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/link/80) — Our own guide to open educational resources.

---

## Understanding Licensing: Creative Commons

When publishing open access, selecting the right license is essential. [Creative Commons (CC) licenses](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/) are the standard in scholarly publishing. They allow you to retain copyright while specifying how others may reuse your work. All CC licenses require attribution (credit to the original author); the differences lie in what additional restrictions apply.

<table id="bkmrk-overview-of-the-six-"><caption>Overview of the six Creative Commons licenses (version 4.0)</caption><thead><tr><th scope="col">License</th><th scope="col">Commercial Use?</th><th scope="col">Adaptations?</th><th scope="col">Notes</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>**CC BY**</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Most permissive. Recommended by the Berlin Declaration and most funders. Maximises reuse and citation potential.</td></tr><tr><td>**CC BY-SA**</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes, under the same license</td><td>“Share Alike” ensures derivative works remain open. Used by Wikipedia.</td></tr><tr><td>**CC BY-NC**</td><td>No</td><td>Yes</td><td>Restricts commercial use. Note: the definition of “commercial” can be ambiguous (e.g., educational fee-charging institutions).</td></tr><tr><td>**CC BY-NC-SA**</td><td>No</td><td>Yes, under the same license</td><td>Combines non-commercial and share-alike conditions. Used by the Klingemann Library LibGuides.</td></tr><tr><td>**CC BY-ND**</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td><td>“No Derivatives” prevents others from adapting the work. Rarely recommended for academic use.</td></tr><tr><td>**CC BY-NC-ND**</td><td>No</td><td>No</td><td>Most restrictive CC license. Limits both commercial reuse and adaptation.</td></tr></tbody></table>

<details id="bkmrk-which-license-should"><summary>**Which license should I choose?**</summary>

For maximum impact and compliance with the Berlin Declaration and most funder mandates, **CC BY** is recommended. It allows the broadest possible reuse while always requiring attribution. If you have specific concerns about commercial exploitation of your work, CC BY-NC is a common compromise, but be aware that it can restrict legitimate uses (e.g., a commercial educational platform redistributing your paper). The Creative Commons website provides an interactive [License Chooser](https://chooser-beta.creativecommons.org/) to help you decide. For further guidance, see the [open-access.network page on licenses](https://open-access.network/en/information/legal-issues/licences).

</details>---

## Recognising and Avoiding Predatory Publishers

Predatory publishers exploit the open access model by charging publication fees without providing genuine peer review, editorial oversight, or lasting archival. Their journals may look professional at first glance, but the work they publish lacks quality assurance and may damage your academic reputation. This is a particular risk for researchers at international institutions who may receive unsolicited publication invitations in English.

### Warning Signs

- Unsolicited emails inviting you to submit, join an editorial board, or speak at a conference, especially if they are overly flattering or use a generic tone.
- Promises of extremely fast peer review (days, not weeks).
- Lack of clear information about the editorial board, peer review process, or publication fees on the journal's website.
- A journal title that closely imitates a well-known publication, often incorporating words like “International,” “European,” or “American.”
- No listing in established indexes such as the [DOAJ](https://doaj.org/), Scopus, or Web of Science.

### How to Check a Journal

<details id="bkmrk-tools-and-strategies"><summary>**Tools and strategies for evaluating journals**</summary>

- [**Think. Check. Submit.**](https://thinkchecksubmit.org/) — An industry-endorsed checklist to help researchers evaluate whether a journal is trustworthy before submitting their work. Available in multiple languages.
- [**DOAJ**](https://doaj.org/) — Inclusion in the DOAJ is a strong quality indicator. The DOAJ applies rigorous criteria covering peer review, editorial transparency, and licensing. If a journal is listed in the DOAJ, it has been vetted.
- [**Compass to Publish**](https://compass.science/) — A tool from the University of Liège that lets you assess a journal's legitimacy by answering a series of questions.
- **Ask a colleague.** If you have never heard of a journal and cannot find it in standard indexes, consult colleagues in your field or contact the library.

For a detailed German-language checklist, see the [open-access.network's guidance on predatory publishing](https://open-access.network/en/information/publishing/open-access-publishing).

</details>---

## Open Access in Berlin and Germany

Whitecliffe operates within a rich regional and national OA ecosystem. The following resources provide context and support:

<details id="bkmrk-key-resources-in-the"><summary>**Key resources in the Berlin and German OA landscape**</summary>

- [**Berlin Declaration on Open Access**](https://openaccess.mpg.de/Berlin-Declaration) (2003) — The foundational statement of the global OA movement, signed by hundreds of research organisations worldwide. Originated in Berlin.
- [**Open-Access-Strategie für Berlin**](https://www.berlin.de/sen/wissenschaft/wissenschaftspolitik/open-access-strategie/) — The State of Berlin's strategy for promoting open access in the city's research institutions.
- [**open-access.network**](https://open-access.network/en/home) — Germany's central information platform on open access. Provides comprehensive guides, FAQs, a helpdesk, and training materials in German and English. Funded by the BMBF.
- [**open-access.network FAQ**](https://open-access.network/en/services/helpdesk/open-access-faq) — Answers to common questions about licensing, self-archiving, predatory journals, and more.
- [**Berlin Universities Publishing (BerlinUP)**](https://www.berlin-universities-publishing.de/en/index.html) — A non-commercial, scholar-owned OA publisher supported by the Berlin University Alliance (FU, HU, TU, Charité).
- [**Zweitveröffentlichungsrecht**](https://open-access.network/en/information/legal-issues/secondary-publication-right) — Information on the German secondary publication right (§ 38(4) UrhG), which enables authors to self-archive accepted manuscripts after twelve months.

</details>---

## Support from the Library

The Klingemann Library is here to assist you at every step of the open access process. We provide:

- Guidance on selecting suitable OA journals, repositories, and licenses.
- Support with navigating funder mandates and institutional policies on open access.
- Instruction on using tools such as Sherpa/Romeo, Unpaywall, ORCID, and the [Research Database Index](https://library.whitecliffe.de/cgi-bin/koha/opac-page.pl?page_id=24).
- Help with depositing research outputs in the [Whitecliffe Institutional Repository](https://repository.berlin-international.de).
- Advice on recognising and avoiding predatory publishers.

For more information or personalised support, please [email us](mailto:library@whitecliffe.de) or [chat via Teams](https://teams.microsoft.com/l/chat/0/0?users=robertson.mcIlwain@microsoft.berlin-international.de).

# Structuring Your Paper

# How to Write an Outline

## Overview

An outline is a structural framework for your paper. It organises your ideas, sources, and arguments before you write the first draft. Taking the time to build a thorough outline prevents writer's block, exposes gaps in your research, and ensures your final argument flows logically from start to finish.

## Prerequisites

Before you attempt to write an outline, you must have:

- A clear [research question](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/the-research-process/page/how-to-define-a-research-question "How to Define a Research Question") or thesis statement.
- Thematically [organized notes](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/the-research-process/page/read-manage-and-synthesize "Read, Manage, and Synthesize"), such as a synthesis matrix.

## Choosing an Outline Format

Different disciplines and learning styles benefit from different outlining methods. Choose the one that best fits your workflow.

### 1. The Linear Outline (Standard Alphanumeric)

This is the traditional, top-down approach. It works exceptionally well for Business Administration (FoB) reports and empirical research papers. You use a combination of numbers and letters to establish a hierarchy of ideas.

- **I. Introduction**
    - A. Hook or context
    - B. Research question and thesis statement
- **II. First Main Theme (e.g., EU Supply Chain Regulations)**
    - A. Topic sentence introducing the theme
    - B. Evidence from Source 1 (Author, Year)
    - C. Evidence from Source 2 (Author, Year)
    - D. Analysis of how this evidence supports the thesis
- **III. Second Main Theme...**

### 2. The Visual Outline (Mind Mapping)

Some students think spatially rather than linearly. A visual outline or mind map allows you to group concepts on a blank canvas before forcing them into a linear sequence.

- Write your main thesis in the centre of the page.
- Draw branches outward for your main themes or case studies.
- Attach specific pieces of evidence, precedent images, or author quotes to each branch.
- Once the map is complete, assign a number to each branch to dictate the final reading order.

[![Spray_diagram_Student_learning_characteristics.png](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/uploads/images/gallery/2026-02/scaled-1680-/spray-diagram-student-learning-characteristics.png)](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/uploads/images/gallery/2026-02/spray-diagram-student-learning-characteristics.png)   
<sub> ["Spray diagram Student learning characteristics"](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spray_diagram_Student_learning_characteristics.png) by CS Odessa is licensed under [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). </sub>

## The Standard Academic Structure

Regardless of whether you outline visually or linearly, most academic papers require three core components:

#### The Introduction

Your introduction should account for roughly ten percent of your total word count. It must provide the background context, introduce the specific problem you are investigating, and end with a clear thesis statement. The thesis statement is the direct answer to your research question.

#### The Body Paragraphs

This is the core of your paper. Do not organise your body paragraphs by author (e.g., "Smith says X. Jones says Y."). Instead, organise them by theme or concept.

Plan each body paragraph using the **Topic-Evidence-Analysis** structure:

1. **Topic Sentence:** State the main idea of the paragraph clearly.
2. **Evidence:** Introduce your paraphrased sources, data, or precedent analyses.
3. **Analysis:** Explain exactly how this evidence proves your point. Do not leave the reader to guess why the evidence matters.

#### The Conclusion

The conclusion should also account for roughly ten percent of your paper. It must restate your thesis in a new way, summarise the main findings from your body paragraphs, and explain the broader implications of your research. Never introduce new evidence or new sources in a conclusion.

<p class="callout info">**Tip: Write the introduction last.** Many students get stuck trying to write the perfect introduction. Outline the whole paper, draft your body paragraphs first, and then write the introduction once you know exactly what your paper actually says.</p>

## Reverse Outlining: A Tool for Editing

If you have already written a messy first draft and feel like the argument is completely lost, use a technique called "reverse outlining."

1. Read your draft and highlight the main point of every single paragraph.
2. Write those main points in a numbered list on a separate piece of paper.
3. Read the list.

Does the list make logical sense? Are there leaps in logic; are ideas repeated in paragraphs three and seven; does a paragraph lack a clear main point? Rearrange or delete the paragraphs based on this reverse outline to instantly fix the structure of your paper.

## Using Generative AI for Outlining

Generative AI tools are excellent structural assistants, provided you supply the ideas.

**Example Prompt:**

> "I am writing a BA thesis on sustainable materials in interior design. My main themes are cost, durability, and aesthetic flexibility. My thesis statement is \[insert statement\]. Suggest a logical, highly detailed structural outline for a thirty-page academic paper based on these themes."

<p class="callout warning">**Academic Integrity:** Do not ask an AI to write the content of the outline for you. You must provide the themes, the thesis statement, and the evidence. The AI should only be used to suggest the structural sequence. Review the library's guide on [Making the most of Generative AI](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/making-the-most-of-generative-ai-chatgpt-etc).</p>

# Managing Citations

  
Learn more about creating citations and citation management software such as Zotero.

# Creating Citations & Avoiding Plagiarism

### What are citations?

**Citations are addresses.** They tell readers where to find a specific piece of research.

Think of a postal address. There are certain pieces of information that must be included and they must be presented in a certain order (*format*) so that a letter can find its destination. Postal addresses may vary slightly in different countries or regions, but in the end they all contain the same pieces of critical information. This can be compared to the slightly varied formats of different style guides for citations.

Citations provide basic information like ***author*, *title*, *publisher*** and ***year of publication*** that allow researchers to locate a particular piece of information.

### Why are citations needed?

- When we use someone else's ideas, we use citations to tell others exactly where that idea came from (*attribution*).
- Citations are critical for scholarly communication and knowledge creation because they allow researchers to trace the origins of and development of ideas over time (*communication*).
- Citations lend credibility to research by situating it within a larger scholarly dialogue (*credibility*).

### How to write citations?

Just like addresses, citations have a very specific format, and different academic disciplines may have slightly different ways that they format citations; adopting the format from one of several style-guides.

<p class="callout info">Please note: **FoB uses APA**-style citations and **FoAD uses Chicago**-style citations.</p>

<p class="callout warning align-left">It is recommended to use **[Citation Management Software](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/citations/page/citation-management-software)** such as **Zotero** to store your sources and generate bibliographies.</p>

---

#### APA

<details id="bkmrk-read-more-apa-style-"><summary>Read more</summary>

APA-style citations are outlined in the *[Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association: the Official Guide to APA Style](https://koha.whitecliffe.de/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=3240)*, but the basic format is as follows:

<table id="bkmrk-surname-of-author%28s%29" style="border-collapse:collapse;width:100%;border-width:1px;background-color:#000000;"><colgroup><col style="width:99.8765%;"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td><span style="color:rgb(255,255,255);">Surname of Author(s), Initial of first name of Author(s).(Year of Publication). *Title* (Edition No.)*.* Publisher*.* URL</span></td></tr></tbody></table>

##### Basic Example

<table id="bkmrk-maesse%2C-j.%2C-p%C3%BChringe" style="border-collapse:collapse;width:100%;"><colgroup><col style="width:99.8765%;"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>**Maesse, J., Pühringer, S., Rossier, T., &amp; Benz, P. (Eds.). (2021). *Power and influence of economists: Contributions to the social studies of economics* (1st ed.). Routledge. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367817084](https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367817084)**</td></tr></tbody></table>

##### [Further Examples](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/citations/page/citation-examples-apa)

</details>---

#### Chicago

<details id="bkmrk-read-more-chicago-st"><summary>Read more</summary>

Chicago-style is outlined in [*The Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS)*](https://library.whitecliffe.de/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=3779), but the basic format consists of two parts:

1. [**An in-text citation (Author-Date Format)**](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/link/63#bkmrk-in-text-citations-%28a)
2. [**A bibliography**](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/link/63#bkmrk-bibliography-%2F-refer)

</details>### Plagiarism  


#### What is plagiarism?

Plagiarism means presenting someone else’s work, or your own previous work in the case of self-plagiarism, as your own. Plagiarism is intellectual theft and is regarded as academic misconduct.

##### Types of plagiarism

<div id="bkmrk-there-are-different-" style="text-align:justify;"><div class="s-lib-box-content pad-left-none pad-right-none"><div class="clearfix" id="bkmrk-there-are-different--0"><article><section class="content">There are different types of plagiarism and all are serious violations of academic honesty.

- **Direct plagiarism:** the word-for-word transcription of part of someone else’s work, without attribution and without quotation marks.
- **Mosaic Plagiarism** occurs when a student borrows phrases from a source without using quotation marks, or finds synonyms for the author’s language while keeping to the same general structure and meaning of the original.
- **Self-plagiarism** occurs when a student submits his or her own previous work, or mixes parts of previous works.
- **Accidental plagiarism** occurs when a person neglects to cite their sources or unintentionally paraphrases a source by using similar words, groups of words without attribution.

#### Avoiding plagiarism

Plagiarism can be committed unintentionally. Make sure you always provide proper source references so that others can see which ideas are those of other authors.

Providing proper source references also enables other people to check these sources.

<iframe height="314" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Pmab92ghG0M" width="560"></iframe>

<div id="bkmrk--3"><div class="s-lib-box-content pad-left-none pad-right-none"><div class="clearfix" id="bkmrk--4"></div></div></div></section></article></div></div></div>---

#### Additional Resources

[Purdue OWL (Online Writing Lab)](https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/purdue_owl.html)

The Online Writing Lab (OWL) at Purdue University in the US has been online since 1995 and is one of the most comprehensive sources available regarding style and citation. Indeed, it often has more information than the actual style guides due to the large number of examples available.

##### Citation Generators

If you have the information about an article or book, you can use one of the tools below to put it in the right format.

<div class="clearfix" id="bkmrk--2" style="text-align:justify;"></div><div id="bkmrk-zoterobib-a-tool-for" style="text-align:justify;">- <div id="bkmrk-zoterobib-a-tool-for-1">[ZoteroBib](https://zbib.org/)<div class="s-lg-link-desc" id="bkmrk-a-tool-for-the-quick">A tool for the quick generation of a citation using a URL, DOI, ISBN, arXiv ID, PMID, or title.</div></div>
- <div id="bkmrk-citation-builder-ano" style="text-align:justify;">[Citation Builder](http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/citationbuilder/)<div class="s-lg-link-desc" id="bkmrk-another-library-crea" style="text-align:justify;">Another library created tool - this time from NC State University Libraries. It has is the most simplified of the tools - choose the type of resource you have, fill out the information, and then select either APA or MLA citation style. Click Submit. It is ready to copy &amp; paste.</div></div>

</div>---

<sub>Thanks to the following sources for providing partial inspiration/content for this page: [University Library Groningen.](http://libguides.rug.nl/)</sub>

# Citation Examples: APA

<p class="callout warning">It is recommended to use **[Citation Management Software](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/citations/page/citation-management-software)** such as **Zotero** to store your sources and generate bibliographies.</p>

### Overview

APA-style citations are outlined in the *[Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association: the Official Guide to APA Style](https://koha.whitecliffe.de/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=3240)*, but the basic format is as follows:

<table id="bkmrk-surname-of-author%28s%29" style="border-collapse:collapse;width:100%;border-width:1px;background-color:#000000;"><colgroup><col style="width:99.8765%;"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td><span style="color:rgb(255,255,255);">Surname of Author(s), Initial of first name of Author(s).(Year of Publication). *Title* (Edition No.)*.* Publisher*.* URL</span></td></tr></tbody></table>

---

<details id="bkmrk-read-more-if-you-dec"><summary>Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)</summary>

**APA (7th edition, updated guidance September 2025)**

APA recommends citing specific AI-generated outputs similarly to software references, using the developer as author. Because AI conversations are generally not retrievable by readers, APA also recommends including the prompt in the body of your paper or in an appendix when it is relevant.

For cases where the tool does not generate a stable URL, APA suggests including prompts and output in an appendix, or seeking guidance from your instructor or editor.

**Guidelines for APA Style Referencing in Undergraduate Assignments:**

1. **In-Text Citations and Reference List:**
    
    
    - In-text citations are necessary for direct mentions of AI-generated content.
    - In the reference list, attribute authorship to the organisation behind the AI model.
2. **Integration into Research Description:**
    
    
    - Explain the use of AI tools in your research in the introduction or methods section.
    - Provide details about the prompts used to interact with the AI.
3. **Handling Text Passages:**
    
    
    - For brief AI-generated excerpts, incorporate them directly into your paper.
    - For longer responses, include relevant portions in the main text or direct readers to an appendix or online supplement for the complete content.

Following these guidelines ensures proper acknowledgment and referencing of AI-generated content in your academic writing.

**Format**

Author. (Date). *Name of tool* (Version of tool) \[Large language model\]. URL

**In-text citation**

<table style="border-collapse:collapse;width:99.9553%;"><colgroup><col style="width:100%;"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>(OpenAI, 2025)</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Reference**

<table style="border-collapse:collapse;width:99.9553%;"><colgroup><col style="width:100%;"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>OpenAI. (2025). *ChatGPT* (GPT-4o version) \[Large language model\]. [https://chatgpt.com](https://chatgpt.com)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Consult the [APA Style blog](https://apastyle.apa.org/blog/how-to-cite-chatgpt) for the most current examples, including guidance on citing AI integrated into software such as Microsoft Copilot.

</details><details id="bkmrk-expand-book%2Febook-%28s"><summary>Books</summary>

#### Book/eBook (single author)

Author. (Year). *Title* (Edition). Publisher. DOI or URL.

**In-text citation**

<table style="border-collapse:collapse;width:99.9553%;"><colgroup><col style="width:100%;"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>(Kuhlmann, 2021)</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Reference**

<table style="border-collapse:collapse;width:100%;"><colgroup><col style="width:99.8718%;"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Kuhlmann, S. (2021). *Public administration in germany*. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53697-8.</td></tr></tbody></table>

##### eBooks and DOIs

<p class="callout info">If a book has a DOI (Digital Object Identifier), add this to the end of the reference. If the article does not have a DOI but does have an accessible URL, include this at the end of the reference instead. You can check to see if the book you are referencing has a DOI at [Crossref](https://search.crossref.org/).</p>

<div id="bkmrk--1"><div class="s-lib-box-content"><div class="clearfix" id="bkmrk--2"></div></div></div>#### Book/eBook (two authors)

For sources with two authors, include both surnames in your in-text citation and full reference, maintaining the source's name order:

**In-text citation**

<table style="border-collapse:collapse;width:99.9553%;"><colgroup><col style="width:100%;"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>(Smith &amp; Johnson, 2015, p.8)

</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Reference**

<table style="border-collapse:collapse;width:100%;"><colgroup><col style="width:99.8718%;"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Smith, A., &amp; Johnson, B. (2015). Strategies for effective business management. Business Press.</td></tr></tbody></table>

#### Book/eBook (three to twenty authors)

For sources with three to twenty authors, cite the first author followed by 'et al' in the in-text citation. List all authors in the full reference, separating them with commas and using an ampersand before the last one:

**In-text citation**

<table style="border-collapse:collapse;width:99.9553%;"><colgroup><col style="width:100%;"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>(Jones et al., 2019)</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Reference**

<table style="border-collapse:collapse;width:100%;"><colgroup><col style="width:99.8718%;"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Jones, M., Davis, R., Clark, P., &amp; Brown, S. (2019). Enhancing Leadership Skills in Business Education. Journal of Business Education, 12(3), 245-260.</td></tr></tbody></table>

#### Book/eBook (more than twenty authors)

For sources with more than twenty authors, include only the first author followed by 'et al' in the in-text citation. List the first 19 authors in the full reference, separated by commas, followed by an ellipsis (...) and the final author:

**In-text citation**

<table style="border-collapse:collapse;width:99.9553%;"><colgroup><col style="width:100%;"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>(Williams et al., 2020)</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Reference**

<table style="border-collapse:collapse;width:100%;"><colgroup><col style="width:99.8718%;"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Williams, C., Adams, E., Turner, G., Harris, M., Miller, J., Moore, K., ...Taylor, R. (2020). Innovations in Business Research. Business Journal, 8, 112-125.</td></tr></tbody></table>

</details><details id="bkmrk-expand-chapter-in-an"><summary>Book chapters</summary>

#### Chapter in an edited book

**In-text citation**

<table style="border-collapse:collapse;width:99.9553%;"><colgroup><col style="width:100%;"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>(Smith, 2020)</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Reference**

<table style="border-collapse:collapse;width:100%;"><colgroup><col style="width:99.8718%;"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Smith, J. (2020). Innovations in Market Analysis. In K. Johnson &amp; R. Anderson (Eds.), *Business Trends: Navigating the Future* (3rd ed., pp. 112-135). Horizon Publications.</td></tr></tbody></table>

</details><details id="bkmrk-expand-conference-pr"><summary>Conferences</summary>

#### Conference Presentation

- Author of paper.
- Year of publication in citation, and full dates of the conference in the reference.
- Title of presentation in italics, with description of presentation type in square brackets.
- Name of conference.
- Location.
- If a link to the video of the presentation is available, add this to the end of the reference.

**In-text citation**

<table style="border-collapse:collapse;width:99.9553%;"><colgroup><col style="width:100%;"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>(Bird, 2019)</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Reference**

<table style="border-collapse:collapse;width:100%;"><colgroup><col style="width:99.8718%;"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Bird, N. (2019, May 15-17). Strategies for Business Innovation: Exploring the Dynamics of Corporate Dispositions \[Conference presentation\]. BizInnovate 2019, Virtual Conference.</td></tr></tbody></table>

</details><details id="bkmrk-expand-author%2Frights"><summary>Data</summary>

- Author/Rights Holder.
- Year of publication.
- Title of dataset in italics.
- (Version number) and separate with a semi-colon.
- \[Description of form, e.g. Data set or Data set and code book\].
- Publisher.
- URL if available.

If you are citing published data, for example if it appears in a book or journal article, cite the publication rather than the data itself.

**In-text citation**

<table style="border-collapse:collapse;width:99.9553%;"><colgroup><col style="width:100%;"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>(ABC Business Summit, 2009)</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Reference**

<table style="border-collapse:collapse;width:100%;"><colgroup><col style="width:99.8718%;"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>ABC Business Summit. (2009). 2007 Business Insights Survey \[Data file and code book\]. ABC Publishing. [http://abcbusinesssummit.org/datasets/](http://abcbusinesssummit.org/datasets/)</td></tr></tbody></table>

</details><details id="bkmrk-expand-author-%28surna"><summary>Journal articles</summary>

- Author (surname followed by initials).
- Year of publication (in round brackets).
- Title of article.
- Title of journal (in italics - capitalise first letter of each word in title, except for linking words such as and, of, the, for).
- Volume number (in italics) and, where applicable, part number, month, or season (in round brackets).
- Page numbers.
- DOI

**In-text citation**

<table style="border-collapse:collapse;width:99.9553%;"><colgroup><col style="width:100%;"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>(Smith, 2022)</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Reference**

<table style="border-collapse:collapse;width:100%;"><colgroup><col style="width:99.8718%;"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Smith, J. (2022). Innovations in Business Strategies. *International Business Symposium*, 5(2), 45-56. [https://doi.org/10.1234/ibs2022.innovations](https://doi.org/10.1234/ibs2022.innovations)</td></tr></tbody></table>

</details><details id="bkmrk-expand-creator.-year"><summary>Online video</summary>

**Format**

Creator. (Date). *Title*. \[Video\]. Site name. URL.

**In-text citation**

<table style="border-collapse:collapse;width:99.9553%;"><colgroup><col style="width:100%;"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>(MadeUp Business Conference, 2020)</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Reference**

<table style="border-collapse:collapse;width:100%;"><colgroup><col style="width:99.8718%;"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>MadeUp Business Conference. (2020). The MadeUp Business Conference experience. \[Video\]. YouTube. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLxV5L6IaFA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLxV5L6IaFA)</td></tr></tbody></table>

</details><details id="bkmrk-expand-corporate-or-"><summary>Webpage</summary>

**Format**

Corporate or individual author. (Date). *Title*. URL.

**In-text citation**

<table style="border-collapse:collapse;width:99.9553%;"><colgroup><col style="width:100%;"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>(Fictional Business Conference, 2021)</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Reference**

<table style="border-collapse:collapse;width:100.028%;"><colgroup><col style="width:99.8718%;"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td>Fictional Business Conference. (2021, August 6). Updates on Business Innovations. [https://www.fictionalbusinessconference.com/updates-business-innovations](https://www.fictionalbusinessconference.com/updates-business-innovations)</td></tr></tbody></table>

</details>---

<sup>Thanks to the following sources for providing partial inspiration/content for this page: [University College London](https://library-guides.ucl.ac.uk/APA/7th-edition).</sup>

# Citation Examples: Chicago

<p class="callout warning">It is recommended to use **[Citation Management Software](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/citation-management-software)** such as **Zotero** to store your sources and generate bibliographies.</p>

Chicago style refers to the *[Chicago Manual of Style, 17th Edition (CMOS 17)](https://library.whitecliffe.de/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=3779)*.

<p class="callout info">**Note:** The 18th edition of the *Chicago Manual of Style* (CMOS 18) was published in September 2024 and introduces some changes, particularly to the handling of electronic sources and AI-generated content. The examples on this page follow CMOS 17, which remains widely used. Please confirm with your instructor which edition is required for your programme.</p>

Citing sources in Chicago Author-Date style consists of two parts:

1. [**An in-text citation**](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de#in-text-citations-author-date-format) (a brief parenthetical reference within the body of your text)
2. [**A bibliography entry**](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de#bibliography--references--works-cited) (the full source details, listed alphabetically at the end of your paper)

Every in-text citation must correspond to a full entry in your bibliography, and every bibliography entry should be cited at least once in your text. Together, the two parts allow the reader to trace any claim back to its original source.

<p class="callout warning">**DOIs preferred over URLs:** When citing electronic sources, always use a **DOI** (Digital Object Identifier) if one is available, as DOIs are permanent and stable. Only use a URL if no DOI exists. A DOI is formatted as a full link: `https://doi.org/10.xxxx/xxxxx`.</p>

---

## In-text Citations (*Author-Date Format*)

### Basic Format

**(Author Year, Page Number)**

### Detailed Examples and Cases

<details id="bkmrk-one-author-include-t"><summary>One Author</summary>

Include the author's last name and year, followed by a comma and the page number you are citing.

**(Thelen 2004, 271)**

<p class="callout success">**"There is a consistently high correlation between the voting patterns of parents and the eventual voting patterns of their children, as demonstrated by Miller and Hastings" (Thelen 2004, 271).**</p>

</details><details id="bkmrk-two-authors-connect-"><summary>Two Authors</summary>

Connect both authors' last names with "and," followed by the year, followed by a comma and the page number you are citing.

**(Gourevitch and Shinn 2005, 59)**

<p class="callout success">**The *Seattle Advertiser* made some startling claims about interventions by corporate interests in the 2004 mayoral election (Gourevitch and Shinn 2005, 59).**</p>

</details><details id="bkmrk-three-authors-list-e"><summary>Three Authors</summary>

List each author's last name separated with a comma, with "and" before the third author, followed by the year, followed by a comma and the page number you are citing.

**(Boyd, Teale, and Takuma 1997, 13)**

<p class="callout success">**Early interventions in literacy development have been shown to produce lasting effects on reading ability across socioeconomic groups (Boyd, Teale, and Takuma 1997, 13).**</p>

</details><details id="bkmrk-four-or-more-authors"><summary>Four or More Authors</summary>

List the first author's last name, then include "et al." for "and others."

**(de La Bédoyère et al. 2006, 101)**

<p class="callout success">**The theory that the Renaissance marked a radical break with previous history is now discounted by many, notably by Sadie Hawkins in her book *The Myth of the Renaissance* (de La Bédoyère et al. 2006, 101).**</p>

</details><details id="bkmrk-no-author-or-date-li"><summary>No Author or Date</summary>

List the title of the work in quotation marks and use "n.d." for "no date."

**("Making the most of Generative AI," n.d.)**

<p class="callout success">**Prompt engineering techniques can substantially improve the quality of AI-generated output ("Making the most of Generative AI," n.d.).**</p>

</details><details id="bkmrk-two-or-more-authors-"><summary>Two or More Authors with the Same Last Name</summary>

When the reference list has works by authors with the same last name, include their first initial in the in-text citation.

**(K. Thelen 2004)**

<p class="callout success">**Institutional development in Germany followed a path-dependent trajectory shaped by vocational training systems (K. Thelen 2004).**</p>

</details><details id="bkmrk-multiple-works-by-th"><summary>Multiple Works by the Same Author in the Same Year</summary>

If an author has published multiple works in the same year, alphabetise the titles in the reference list and then add a, b, c, etc. to the year.

**(Sheringham 2010a)**

**(Sheringham 2010b)**

<p class="callout success">**Sheringham's first study focused on archival practices in urban spaces (Sheringham 2010a), while his later work expanded the analysis to include suburban landscapes (Sheringham 2010b).**</p>

</details><details id="bkmrk-author%27s-name-appear"><summary>Author's Name Appears in the Sentence</summary>

If the author's name appears in the sentence, do not include the name again in the parentheses.

<p class="callout success">**Thelen (2004, 271) argues that institutional evolution is deeply rooted in historical contexts.**</p>

</details><details id="bkmrk-multiple-citations-t"><summary>Multiple Citations</summary>

To cite more than one reference in a single in-text citation, separate the references by semicolons. If the works are by the same author, use just the year and separate with a comma. See *CMOS 15.30* for details.

**(Thelen 2004; Gourevitch and Shinn 2005)**

**(Thelen 2004, 2006; Gourevitch and Shinn 2005)**

<p class="callout success">**Several scholars have argued that corporate governance structures are shaped by national institutional frameworks (Thelen 2004; Gourevitch and Shinn 2005).**</p>

</details><details id="bkmrk-figures-%28artwork%2Fima"><summary>Figures (Artwork/Images)</summary>

Images should appear shortly after you mention them in your paper, should be numbered (Figure 1, Figure 2, etc.), and should appear in the *List of Figures* of your research.

Chicago style also states that "a brief statement of the source of an illustration, known as a credit line, is usually appropriate" (*CMOS 3.29: Sources and permissions*). Chicago style does not prescribe the exact format of this statement. **The style does not require that images included in a paper be listed in the bibliography.**

If you wish to include an image in your paper, Whitecliffe requires at least the following information:

- **Author or creator's name**
- **Title**, or brief description if no title exists
- **Year** (if available)
- **Format** (plan, photo, diagram, oil on canvas, etc.), if not apparent
- **Origin** (publication title, website, etc.) 
    - **URL** (for online sources only)
- **Date of access** (for online sources only)

Additional data that add context, such as a caption, are encouraged.

**Example**

<figure>[![Photograph of the Bauhaus building in Dessau, viewed from the south-east, showing the workshop wing and the glass curtain wall facade](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/uploads/images/gallery/2023-12/scaled-1680-/2020-09-18-bauhaus-dessau-werkstattfluegel-ecke-2.jpeg)](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/uploads/images/gallery/2023-12/2020-09-18-bauhaus-dessau-werkstattfluegel-ecke-2.jpeg)<figcaption><sup>Figure 1. <span style="color:rgb(45,194,107);">The Bauhaus building in Dessau,</span> <span style="color:rgb(224,62,45);">Gunnar Klack,</span> *<span style="color:rgb(185,106,217);">Bauhaus Dessau, Gropiusallee Ecke Bauhausstraße, Dessau-Roßlau, Werkstättenflügel Foto aus Richtung Südosten,</span>* <span style="color:rgb(230,126,35);">2020,</span> <span style="color:rgb(53,152,219);">Wikimedia Commons,</span> [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2020-09-18-Bauhaus-Dessau-Werkstattfluegel-Ecke-2.jpg](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2020-09-18-Bauhaus-Dessau-Werkstattfluegel-Ecke-2.jpg). <span style="color:rgb(241,196,15);">CC BY-SA 4.0.</span></sup></figcaption></figure>---

In the example above, the elements correspond to:

<sup>Figure 1. <span style="color:rgb(45,194,107);">Caption,</span> <span style="color:rgb(224,62,45);">Author/Creator,</span> *<span style="color:rgb(185,106,217);">Title,</span>* <span style="color:rgb(230,126,35);">Date,</span> <span style="color:rgb(53,152,219);">Publisher/website,</span> URL. <span style="color:rgb(241,196,15);">License.</span></sup>

</details>---

## Bibliography / References / Works-Cited

The bibliography appears at the end of your paper and provides the full publication details for every source cited in the text. Entries are listed alphabetically by the first author's last name (or by title, ignoring articles such as "A," "The," or "An," when no author is available). The bibliography allows your reader to locate and verify each source you have used.

<p class="callout info">**Formatting note:** Bibliography entries use a **hanging indent**: the first line of each entry is flush left, and all subsequent lines are indented (typically by 1.27 cm / 0.5 in). In Microsoft Word, you can apply this via *Paragraph &gt; Special &gt; Hanging*. In Google Docs, use *Format &gt; Align &amp; indent &gt; Indentation options &gt; Special indent &gt; Hanging*.</p>

<details id="bkmrk-generative-artificia"><summary>Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)</summary>

**Chicago (18th edition): Author-Date**

Chicago style lists the AI tool's developer as the author. The date is the date you generated the content, not a publication date.

**In-text citation**

> (OpenAI 2024)

**Reference list entry (with a shareable URL)**

> OpenAI. 2024. Response to "Describe three approaches to sustainable façade design for a tropical climate." ChatGPT-4o, November 14, 2024. [https://chatgpt.com/share/\[link](https://chatgpt.com/share/%5Blink)\].

**Reference list entry (prompt included in the text of your paper)**

> OpenAI. 2024. Text generated by ChatGPT-4o, November 14, 2024. [https://chatgpt.com/share/\[link](https://chatgpt.com/share/%5Blink)\].

**If no shareable URL is available**

Some AI tools, including institutionally licensed versions of Copilot and Gemini, do not generate shareable links. In that case, describe the exchange clearly in your text and note that the conversation is not publicly retrievable. A bibliography entry is optional but should include as much identifying information as possible:

> Microsoft. 2024. Response to "Summarize current building regulations for passive house design in Northern Europe." Microsoft Copilot, October 3, 2024. Conversation not publicly retrievable.

**Notes**

- Replace the example prompts with your own. Keep the prompt text in quotation marks.
- Include the model version (GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5, etc.) where you know it; this matters because different versions produce different outputs.
- Chicago 18th edition guidance on AI citation is covered at section 14.112. The guidance is subject to further revision; check the [Chicago Manual of Style Q&amp;A](https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Documentation.html) for updates.

</details><details id="bkmrk-books-%2F-ebooks-book-"><summary>Books / eBooks</summary>

**Book (single author)**

Author's Last name, First name. Year of publication. *Title: Subtitle.* Edition. Place of publication: Publisher.

<p class="callout success">Thelen, Kathleen. 2004. *How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of Skills in Germany.* Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</p>

**Book (two or three authors)**

First author Last name, First name, and second author First name Last name. Year of publication. *Title: Subtitle.* Edition. Place of publication: Publisher.

<p class="callout success">Gourevitch, Peter, and James Shinn. 2005. *Political Power and Corporate Control: The New Global Politics of Corporate Governance.* New Jersey: Princeton University Press.</p>

**Book (four or more authors)**

First Author Last name, First name, remaining authors' First name Last name. Year of publication. *Title: Subtitle*. Edition. Place of Publication: Publisher.

<p class="callout success">De la Bédoyère, Camilla, Ihor Holubizky, Julia Kelly, Michael Kerrigan, James Mackay, William Matar, Tom Middlemos, Michael Robinson, and Iain Zaczek. 2006. *A Brief History of Art.* London: Flame Tree Publishing.</p>

**eBooks**

Author(s) Last name, First name. Year of publication. *Title: Subtitle*. Edition. Place of Publication: Publisher. DOI, URL, or database name.

<p class="callout success">Beaumont, Lesley A. 2012. *Childhood in Ancient Athens: Iconography and Social History*. London: Routledge. [https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucd/detail.action?docID=1114632](https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucd/detail.action?docID=1114632).</p>

---

<p class="callout info">**Note:** If a book is available in print and online, you must cite the version you consulted. Access dates are only included if no publication date information is available. If no place of publication is available for an eBook, write "n.p." ("no place") in its position.</p>

<p class="callout info">**Note:** If you access your book on an eReader or other type of platform, insert that instead of the URL (e.g., Kindle, Google Play Books, Apple Books).</p>

<p class="callout info">**Note:** Where page numbers are not available or change depending on the device used, CMOS 17 advises including chapter numbers or section headings instead. If a scanned version of the original book is available online, this version is preferable for citation.</p>

</details><details id="bkmrk-book-chapters-author"><summary>Book Chapters</summary>

Author(s) Last name, First name. Year of publication. "Title of Chapter." In *Book Title*, edited by First name Last name, Pages. Place of publication: Publisher.

<p class="callout success">Sheringham, Michael. 2010. "Archiving." In *Restless Cities*, edited by Matthew Beaumont and Gregory Dart, 10–24. London: Verso.</p>

</details><details id="bkmrk-journal-articles-jou"><summary>Journal Articles</summary>

**Journal article (single author)**

Author(s) Last name, First name. Year of publication. "Title of Article." *Journal Title* Volume, Issue no. (month or season): Pages.

<p class="callout success">Barber, Marcus. 2024. "Global Warming and the Political Ecology of Health: Emerging Crises and Systemic Solutions." *The Australian Journal of Anthropology* 21, no. 3 (Winter): 390–391.</p>

**Journal article (two or three authors)**

First Author Last name, First name, remaining authors First name Last name. Year of publication. "Title of Article." *Journal Title* Volume, Issue no. (month or season): Pages.

<p class="callout success">Morgan, Sylvia, Danny Carswell, and Lynda Lamore. 2010. "The Rise of Political Correctness in Post-War Britain." *Twentieth Century Britain* 25, no. 3 (March): 412–416.</p>

**Journal article (four or more authors)**

First Author Last name, First name, remaining authors First name Last name. Year of publication. "Title of Article." *Journal Title* Volume, Issue no. (month or season): Pages.

<p class="callout success">Virtue, Simon, Holly Wright, Dale Diamond, and Sheila Murphy. 1943. "Was Mark Twain a Nihilist?" *American Literary Essays* 3, no. 88 (Winter): 13–27.</p>

**eJournal article**

Author(s) Last name, First name. Year of publication. "Title of Article." *Journal Title* Volume, Issue no. (month or season): Pages. DOI or URL.

<p class="callout success">Mulvin, Lynda, and Steven E. Sidebotham. 2004. "Roman Game Boards from Abu Sha'ar (Red Sea Coast, Egypt)." *Antiquity* 78, no. 301 (September): 602–617. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00113250](https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00113250).</p>

---

<p class="callout info">**Note:** CMOS 17 advises including an access date only when no publication date is provided.</p>

<p class="callout info">**Note:** Month of publication only needs to be included where given in the source.</p>

<p class="callout info">**Note:** For four or more authors, list all authors in the bibliography. In a footnote, list only the first author followed by "et al." For more than ten authors, list the first seven in the bibliography followed by "et al."</p>

</details><details id="bkmrk-theses-and-dissertat"><summary>Theses and Dissertations</summary>

Author Last name, First name. Year. "Title of Thesis." Type of thesis, Institution. DOI or URL.

<p class="callout success">Okonkwo, Adaeze. 2024. "Brand Storytelling and Consumer Engagement in the German Start-Up Ecosystem." Master's thesis, Whitecliffe University of Applied Sciences. https://repository.berlin-international.de/items/example.</p>

---

<p class="callout info">**Note:** The type of thesis should be specified exactly (e.g., "Bachelor's thesis," "Master's thesis," "PhD diss."). If the thesis is available in the [Whitecliffe Institutional Repository](https://repository.berlin-international.de) or another online repository, include the DOI or URL.</p>

</details><details id="bkmrk-reports-and-white-pa"><summary>Reports and White Papers</summary>

Author(s) or Organisation. Year. *Title of Report*. Report number (if applicable). Place of publication: Publisher. DOI or URL.

<p class="callout success">Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2023. *OECD SME and Entrepreneurship Outlook 2023*. Paris: OECD Publishing. [https://doi.org/10.1787/342b8564-en](https://doi.org/10.1787/342b8564-en).</p>

<p class="callout success">McKinsey &amp; Company. 2024. *The State of AI in Early 2024: Gen AI Adoption Spikes and Starts to Generate Value*. [https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the-state-of-ai](https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the-state-of-ai).</p>

---

<p class="callout info">**Note:** When an organisation is both the author and the publisher, it is acceptable to list the organisation as the author and omit it from the publisher position, or to list it in both positions. Be consistent throughout your bibliography.</p>

</details><details id="bkmrk-conference-papers-an"><summary>Conference Papers and Proceedings</summary>

**Unpublished conference paper**

Author(s) Last name, First name. Year. "Title of Paper." Paper presented at Conference Name, Location, Date. DOI or URL.

<p class="callout success">Chen, Wei, and Laura Müller. 2023. "Sustainable Materials in Modular Housing: A Comparative Analysis." Paper presented at the International Conference on Sustainable Design, Copenhagen, September 14–16, 2023.</p>

**Paper published in a proceedings volume**

Author(s) Last name, First name. Year. "Title of Paper." In *Title of Proceedings*, edited by First name Last name, Pages. Place of publication: Publisher. DOI or URL.

<p class="callout success">Nakamura, Yuki. 2022. "User Experience Design for Ageing Populations." In *Proceedings of the 2022 Design Research Society Conference*, edited by Ri Pierce and Paul Rodgers, 312–325. London: Design Research Society. [https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.example](https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.example).</p>

</details><details id="bkmrk-artworks-%2F-images-no"><summary>Artworks / Images</summary>

<p class="callout info">**Note:** CMOS 17 states that paintings, sculptures, and photographs can normally be cited in the text with full source details. **A bibliography entry is not a requirement** (*CMOS 14.235: Citing paintings, photographs, and sculpture*).</p>

Creator/Artist(s) Last name, First name. *Title*. Date of creation/completion. Medium, Dimensions (dimensions conversion). Location of work. DOI, URL, or database name.

<p class="callout success">Gloag, Isobel. *The Woman with the Puppets*. 1915. Oil on canvas, 64.5 × 82.5 cm (25.39 × 32.48 in). Hugh Lane Gallery, Dublin, Ireland. [http://emuseum.pointblank.ie/online\_catalogue/work-detail.php?objectid=619](http://emuseum.pointblank.ie/online_catalogue/work-detail.php?objectid=619).</p>

</details><details id="bkmrk-webpages-author-last"><summary>Webpages</summary>

Author Last name, First name. "Title of Web Page." Website name or publishing organisation. Publication date or last modified date, year. Access date if no other date available. DOI or URL.

<p class="callout success">Hayden, Meadhbh. "My Tips for Swimming in the Irish Sea." SpunOut.ie. February 23, 2021. [https://spunout.ie/voices/advice/my-tips-swimming-irish-sea](https://spunout.ie/voices/advice/my-tips-swimming-irish-sea).</p>

---

<p class="callout info">**Note:** If no author is available, the publishing organisation can be used instead. If neither is available, list the title first. Use the first significant word (ignoring articles such as "A," "The," or "An") to determine alphabetical placement in the bibliography.</p>

<p class="callout info">**Note:** Only provide an access date if the date published or last modified is unavailable.</p>

<p class="callout info">**Note:** The publishing organisation does not need to be included if it is the same body as the website name, title, or author.</p>

</details>---

<sup>Thanks to the following sources for providing partial inspiration and content for this page: [Concordia University Chicago, Klinck Memorial Library](https://libguides.cuchicago.edu/citation/chicago) and [UCD Library, University College Dublin](https://libguides.ucd.ie/chicagostyle/introduction).</sup>

# Citation Management Software

## Overview

> A reference manager supports researchers in three core steps: **searching, storing, and writing**. It helps you find relevant literature, store papers and their bibliographic metadata in a personal database, and insert citations and bibliographies in a chosen style when writing.

Fenner, M., Scheliga, K., &amp; Bartling, S. (2014). Reference management. In S. Bartling &amp; S. Friesike (Eds.), *Opening Science* (pp. 125–137). Springer. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8\_8](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_8)

Citation managers reduce transcription errors, automate reformatting when you switch citation styles, and provide structured deduplication across multiple database exports for systematic reviews.

---

## Choosing a Tool

The table below compares the three tools most commonly used in academic contexts. **The library recommends Zotero** for all students: it is free, open-source, and has no storage paywall for the core workflow.

<table id="bkmrk-feature-zotero-mende"><thead><tr><th>Feature</th><th>Zotero</th><th>Mendeley</th><th>EndNote</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Cost</td><td>Free (open-source)</td><td>Free (basic); owned by Elsevier</td><td>Paid</td></tr><tr><td>Storage (free tier)</td><td>300 MB sync; unlimited local</td><td>2 GB</td><td>n/a (local only)</td></tr><tr><td>Browser connector</td><td>Yes — all major browsers</td><td>Yes</td><td>Limited</td></tr><tr><td>Word processor</td><td>Word, LibreOffice, Google Docs</td><td>Word, LibreOffice</td><td>Word</td></tr><tr><td>Group libraries</td><td>Yes — free, unlimited members</td><td>Yes — limited to 25 members</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Deduplication</td><td>Built-in duplicate detection</td><td>Basic</td><td>Basic</td></tr><tr><td>Open-source</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>PDF annotation</td><td>Yes (built-in reader, Zotero 7+)</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Cite styles available</td><td>10,000+ (CSL)</td><td>4,000+ (CSL)</td><td>7,000+</td></tr></tbody></table>

---

### [![Zotero](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/uploads/images/gallery/2026-02/scaled-1680-/zotero-logo.png)](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/uploads/images/gallery/2026-02/zotero-logo.png)

### <span style="display:none;color:rgb(255,255,255);">Zotero </span>

#### Installation

Zotero has two required components and one optional one:

1. **[Zotero desktop application](https://www.zotero.org/download/):** Available for Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, and Android.
2. **[Browser Connector](https://www.zotero.org/download/):** a browser extension for Chrome, Firefox, Edge, and Safari. Once installed, a toolbar button appears in your browser. Clicking it captures the metadata (and often the PDF) of whatever page you are viewing — a journal article, a book record, a webpage — directly into your Zotero library.
3. **[Word processor plugin](https://www.zotero.org/support/word_processor_integration):** automatically installed with the desktop app for Microsoft Word and LibreOffice. A Google Docs connector is also available. The plugin inserts in-text citations and generates a bibliography in any style, and reformats both instantly if you switch styles.

<p class="callout info">Keep the Zotero desktop application open while you are writing. The word processor plugin communicates with the desktop app to retrieve your references; it cannot function if the app is closed.</p>

---

#### Core Features

##### Collecting Sources

- **Browser Connector:** Save a source with one click from any database, catalogue, or webpage. Zotero detects the item type (journal article, book, report, webpage) and populates the correct metadata fields automatically. For most databases (EBSCO, JSTOR, Google Scholar), it also downloads the PDF where your access allows.
- **Manual entry:** Add items by DOI, ISBN, or arXiv ID via *File → Add Item by Identifier*, or enter metadata manually.
- **Import from databases:** Export search results from EBSCO or JSTOR as RIS or BibTeX files and import them in bulk via *File → Import*. This is the recommended method for SLR database searches.

##### Organizing Your Library

- **Collections:** Create a folder (collection) per database search or project. One item can belong to multiple collections without being duplicated. For SLRs, create one collection per database, one for each screening phase, and one final collection for included studies.
- **Tags:** Apply keyword tags to items for thematic grouping. Tags can be added manually or imported automatically from database keywords.
- **Saved searches:** Create persistent, auto-updating searches across your library based on any field combination.

##### Reading and Annotating

Zotero includes a built-in PDF and EPUB reader with full annotation support: highlights, comments, and text notes are stored in Zotero and can be exported. Annotations appear in the item pane alongside metadata and are searchable across your library.

##### Citing Sources

The word processor plugin inserts citations and manages bibliographies dynamically. Key operations:

- **Insert Citation** (Ctrl/Cmd + Shift + A in Word): Search your Zotero library and insert an in-text citation at the cursor.
- **Insert Bibliography**: Generates a full reference list at the cursor position, automatically sorted and formatted.
- **Switch Style**: Change the citation style across the entire document in one step; all in-text citations and the bibliography reformat automatically. No manual reformatting is required.

Supported styles include APA 7, Chicago 17 (Author-Date and Notes-Bibliography), MLA, Harvard, and over 10,000 others from the [CSL style repository](https://www.zotero.org/styles).

##### Group Libraries

Group libraries allow multiple users to share a Zotero collection in real time. They are free and have no member limit. Use cases:

- Sharing a reading list with fellow students working on a joint project
- Collaborative SLRs where two reviewers need access to the same reference set
- Supervisor access to a student's reference library for review

To create a group: go to [zotero.org](https://www.zotero.org), sign in, and create a group under *Groups*. Invite members by email or Zotero username. Group libraries appear in the left panel of the desktop app.

---

#### Zotero for Systematic Literature Reviews

For [SLRs](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/chapter/systematic-literature-reviews), Zotero's most important functions are import, deduplication, and collection structure. The workflow below follows the steps described in [Conducting Your Search](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/conducting-your-search "Conducting Your Search").

##### Step 1: Create a collection structure before searching

Create the following collections in Zotero before you begin:

```markdown
My SLR/
├── 01_Database Searches/
│ ├── EBSCO [date]
│ ├── JSTOR [date]
│ └── Google Scholar [date]
├── 02_After Deduplication/
├── 03_Title-Abstract Screening/
│ ├── Included
│ └── Excluded
├── 04_Full-Text Screening/
│ ├── Included
│ └── Excluded
└── 05_Final Included Studies/
```

This structure mirrors your PRISMA flow diagram and makes it easy to report numbers at each stage.

##### Step 2: Import search results

Export results from each database as an RIS or BibTeX file, then import into the corresponding sub-collection via *File → Import*. Do this separately for each database so counts per database are preserved.

##### Step 3: Deduplicate

1. Select all items across your database sub-collections and copy them into the *02\_After Deduplication* collection.
2. Click *Duplicate Items* in the left panel. Zotero groups likely duplicates for review.
3. Review each pair: click *Merge Items* to keep the record with the most complete metadata.
4. Record the number of duplicates removed for your PRISMA diagram.

<p class="callout warning">Zotero's automatic duplicate detection works on title similarity and DOI matching. Always review suggested duplicates manually before merging — conference pre-prints and final journal versions of the same paper will be flagged as duplicates but may need to be kept separately depending on your protocol.</p>

##### Step 4: Use tags for screening decisions

During title/abstract screening, add tags such as `include`, `exclude`, or `uncertain` to each item. The Tags panel (bottom-left) lets you filter your library instantly by any tag, making it easy to move items between collections after screening.

---

#### Further Learning

<table id="bkmrk-resource-description"><thead><tr><th>Resource</th><th>Description</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>[Zotero Quick Start Guide](https://www.zotero.org/support/quick_start_guide)</td><td>Official introduction from the Zotero team</td></tr><tr><td>[Word Processor Plugins](https://www.zotero.org/support/word_processor_integration)</td><td>Official instructions for Word, LibreOffice, and Google Docs</td></tr><tr><td>[Zotero for Systematic Reviews](https://library-guides.ucl.ac.uk/zotero/desktop-duplicates)</td><td>UCL Library guide on deduplication for SLRs</td></tr><tr><td>[ZoteroBib](https://zbib.org/)</td><td>Quick browser-based citation generator (no account needed; does not require the desktop app)</td></tr></tbody></table>

# Systematic Literature Reviews

# Overview

Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are a structured, reproducible method for identifying and synthesizing existing research to answer a focused research question. This page will guide you through the concept and process step by step.

### What Is a Systematic Literature Review?

An SLR is a scholarly synthesis of evidence on a clearly defined topic, using explicit, pre-specified methods to identify, select, critically appraise, and summarise relevant studies. Unlike ad hoc reading of literature, every decision is documented so the review can be replicated.

- Minimizes selection bias through predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria<span class="inline-flex">​</span>
- Provides the highest level of secondary evidence for a research question<span class="inline-flex">​</span>
- Common in business research (e.g., management, HRM, strategy, marketing) theses

#### SLR vs. Traditional Literature Review

<div class="group relative my-[1em]" id="bkmrk-feature-traditional-"><div class="w-full overflow-auto rounded-lg md:max-w-[90vw] border-subtlest ring-subtlest divide-subtlest bg-raised dark:bg-offset"><table class="my-0 w-full table-auto border-separate border-spacing-0 text-sm font-sans rounded-lg border-x border-t border-subtle [&_tr:last-child_td:first-child]:rounded-bl-lg [&_tr:last-child_td:last-child]:rounded-br-lg"><thead><tr><th class="border-subtle p-sm break-normal border-b text-left align-bottom border-r last:border-r-0 font-bold bg-subtler last:border-radius-tr-lg first:border-radius-tl-lg">Feature</th><th class="border-subtle p-sm break-normal border-b text-left align-bottom border-r last:border-r-0 font-bold bg-subtler last:border-radius-tr-lg first:border-radius-tl-lg">Traditional Literature Review</th><th class="border-subtle p-sm break-normal border-b text-left align-bottom border-r last:border-r-0 font-bold bg-subtler last:border-radius-tr-lg first:border-radius-tl-lg">Systematic Literature Review</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td class="px-sm border-subtle min-w-[48px] break-normal border-b border-r last:border-r-0">Research question</td><td class="px-sm border-subtle min-w-[48px] break-normal border-b border-r last:border-r-0">Broad or flexible</td><td class="px-sm border-subtle min-w-[48px] break-normal border-b border-r last:border-r-0">Narrow and pre-specified</td></tr><tr><td class="px-sm border-subtle min-w-[48px] break-normal border-b border-r last:border-r-0">Search strategy</td><td class="px-sm border-subtle min-w-[48px] break-normal border-b border-r last:border-r-0">Informal, author-led</td><td class="px-sm border-subtle min-w-[48px] break-normal border-b border-r last:border-r-0">Documented, reproducible</td></tr><tr><td class="px-sm border-subtle min-w-[48px] break-normal border-b border-r last:border-r-0">Study selection</td><td class="px-sm border-subtle min-w-[48px] break-normal border-b border-r last:border-r-0">Subjective</td><td class="px-sm border-subtle min-w-[48px] break-normal border-b border-r last:border-r-0">Governed by explicit criteria</td></tr><tr><td class="px-sm border-subtle min-w-[48px] break-normal border-b border-r last:border-r-0">Quality appraisal</td><td class="px-sm border-subtle min-w-[48px] break-normal border-b border-r last:border-r-0">Often absent</td><td class="px-sm border-subtle min-w-[48px] break-normal border-b border-r last:border-r-0">Mandatory</td></tr><tr><td class="px-sm border-subtle min-w-[48px] break-normal border-b border-r last:border-r-0">Reporting</td><td class="px-sm border-subtle min-w-[48px] break-normal border-b border-r last:border-r-0">Variable</td><td class="px-sm border-subtle min-w-[48px] break-normal border-b border-r last:border-r-0">Follows standards (e.g., PRISMA) <span class="inline-flex">​</span></td></tr><tr><td class="px-sm border-subtle min-w-[48px] break-normal border-b border-r last:border-r-0">Replicability</td><td class="px-sm border-subtle min-w-[48px] break-normal border-b border-r last:border-r-0">Low</td><td class="px-sm border-subtle min-w-[48px] break-normal border-b border-r last:border-r-0">High</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div></div>### When Should You Use an SLR?


- Your thesis research question asks *what does the existing evidence show about X?*
- Your supervisor or faculty expects evidence-based synthesis (common in management, HRM, sustainability, entrepreneurship)
- You have sufficient time; a rigorous SLR takes weeks to months
- Note: Not every thesis requires an SLR; confirm with your supervisor first

### The SLR Process: Step by Step

#### Step 1: [Define Your Research Question / Select Framework](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/define-your-research-question-select-framework "Define Your Research Question & Select Framework")

<details id="bkmrk-read-more-different-"><summary>Read more</summary>

A well-defined research question is the foundation of a systematic literature review. Every subsequent decision (which databases to search, what terms to use, which studies to include) flows directly from it. A question that is too broad produces an unmanageable volume of results; one that is too narrow may yield almost nothing. Structured question frameworks give you a reliable method for making your question precise and searchable before you open a single database.

Review [Define Your Research Question &amp; Select Framework](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/define-your-research-question-select-framework) for more information on this topic.

</details>#### Step 2: [Write a Protocol](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/writing-a-protocol "Writing a Protocol")

<details id="bkmrk-read-more-%C2%A0"><summary>Read more</summary>

A protocol is a written plan that specifies, **in advance**, exactly how you intend to conduct your systematic literature review. It is not complete until all 11/12 sub-sections below have been worked through and recorded. Writing the protocol is not a bureaucratic hurdle; it is the mechanism that makes your review transparent, reproducible, and defensible to examiners, supervisors, and future readers.

Review [Writing a Protocol](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/writing-a-protocol) for more information on **why it matters** and **what it contains**.

</details>#### Step 3: [Conduct Your Search](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/conducting-your-search "Conducting Your Search")

<details id="bkmrk-read-more-%C2%A0-1"><summary>Read more</summary>

This step translates the search strategy you documented in your [protocol](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/writing-a-protocol) into actual database queries, records the results systematically, and prepares a clean, deduplicated set of references for screening. Precision and documentation at this stage are critical: every decision you make must be recorded so that your search can be reported transparently in your final thesis.

Review [Conducting Your Search](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/conducting-your-search) for more information on this topic.

<p class="callout warning">Before you search, use our [Search Quality Self-Assessment Checklist](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/self-assessment-checklist-for-your-slr-search) (adapted from [vom Brocke et al., 2015](https://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol37/iss1/9/)) to verify your search strategy meets the standards expected in a systematic review.</p>

</details>#### Step 4: [Screen Results](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/screening-the-results "Screening the Results")

<details id="bkmrk-read-more-which-data"><summary>Read more</summary>

 Screening is the process of applying your pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria to the deduplicated set of references produced earlier, in order to identify the studies that will form the basis of your review. It proceeds in two sequential phases: first by title and abstract, then by full text. Each phase reduces the total set further; only studies that pass both phases are included in your final review.

Review [Screening the Results](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/screening-the-results "Screening the Results") for more information on this topic.

</details>#### Step 5: [Appraise Study Quality](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/appraise-study-quality "Appraise Study Quality")

<details id="bkmrk-read-more-%C2%A0-2"><summary>Read more</summary>

Quality appraisal is the systematic assessment of the methodological rigor of each study included after screening. It answers the question: how much confidence can we place in the findings of this study? Appraisal does not judge whether a study is interesting or relevant (screening already established relevance); it judges whether the study was conducted in a way that makes its findings trustworthy.  
  
Review [Appraise Study Quality](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/appraise-study-quality) for more information on this topic.

</details>#### Step 6: [Extract Data](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/extract-data "Extract Data")

<details id="bkmrk-read-more-%C2%A0-3"><summary>Read more</summary>

Data extraction is the process of systematically pulling the information you need from each included study and recording it in a standardised form. It bridges the gap between your screened, appraised set of studies and the synthesis you will conduct later. Consistent, thorough extraction is what makes synthesis possible: if you extract different information from different papers, you cannot meaningfully compare or combine them.

Review [Extract Data](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/extract-data) for more information on this topic.

</details>#### Step 7: [Synthesize and Report](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/synthesize-and-report "Synthesize and Report")

<details id="bkmrk-read-more-%C2%A0-4"><summary>Read more</summary>

Synthesis is where the work of the review becomes an argument. Having [identified](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/conducting-your-search), [screened](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/screening-the-results "Screening the Results"), [appraised](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/appraise-study-quality "Appraise Study Quality"), and [extracted data](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/extract-data "Extract Data") from your included studies, you now interpret what they collectively say in response to your research question. Reporting then translates that interpretation into a structured written account that meets the standards of academic transparency required for a thesis.

Review [Synthesize and Report](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/synthesize-and-report "Synthesize and Report") for more information on this topic.

</details>#### Before Submission: [Evaluating Your Own SLR Process](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/evaluating-your-own-slr-process "Evaluating Your Own SLR Process")

### A Note on Process Models

<p class="callout info">Different disciplines and authors present SLR processes with slightly different stage names and orders. The seven-step structure presented here synthesises best practices from management research ([Tranfield et al., 2003](https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375)), software engineering ([Kitchenham &amp; Charters, 2007](https://legacyfileshare.elsevier.com/promis_misc/525444systematicreviewsguide.pdf)), and information systems ([vom Brocke et al., 2015](https://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol37/iss1/9/); [Bandara et al., 2015](https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03708)). The core sequence (question → protocol → search → screen → appraise → extract → synthesise) is common across all models; differences are primarily in emphasis rather than substance.</p>

[![SLR Process by (Kitchenham and Charters 2007).png](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/uploads/images/gallery/2026-02/scaled-1680-/slr-process-by-kitchenham-and-charters-2007.png)](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/uploads/images/gallery/2026-02/slr-process-by-kitchenham-and-charters-2007.png)  
<sub> "SLR Process of Kitchenham and Charters 2007" by Hasan Koç is licensed under [CC BY-NC-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), based on [Kitchenham &amp; Charters, 2007](https://legacyfileshare.elsevier.com/promis_misc/525444systematicreviewsguide.pdf).</sub>

[![SLR Process by (Bandara et al 2015).png](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/uploads/images/gallery/2026-02/scaled-1680-/slr-process-by-bandara-et-al-2015.png)](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/uploads/images/gallery/2026-02/slr-process-by-bandara-et-al-2015.png)  
<sub> "SLR Process of Bandara et al 2015" by Hasan Koç is licensed under [CC BY-NC-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), based on [Bandara et al., 2015](https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03708).</sub>

# Define Your Research Question & Select Framework

## Overview

A well-defined research question is the foundation of a systematic literature review. Every subsequent decision (which databases to search, what terms to use, which studies to include) flows directly from it. A question that is too broad produces an unmanageable volume of results; one that is too narrow may yield almost nothing. Structured question frameworks give you a reliable method for making your question precise and searchable before you open a single database.

---

## Why Are You Conducting This Review?

Before formulating your question, be clear about the purpose of your review. A systematic literature review is not a default method; it is the right choice for specific research goals. Common justifications in business and management research include:

- Analyzing the progress of a specific research stream
- Making recommendations for future research directions
- Reviewing how a particular theoretical model has been applied in the literature
- Reviewing how a particular methodological approach has been used across studies
- Developing a conceptual model or framework
- Answering a specific, bounded empirical question

Your research question should follow directly from one of these purposes. If you cannot identify which of these your review serves, discuss the scope with your supervisor before proceeding.

---

## Why Structure Your Question?

Formulating your question using a framework forces you to identify the exact components of your topic and translate them into search terms. This step is worth doing carefully in writing, not just in your head, because:

- It makes your search strategy transparent and reproducible
- It helps you spot gaps or ambiguities in your topic before investing time in searching
- It gives your supervisor something concrete to review and approve
- It is required as part of your [protocol](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/writing-a-protocol "Writing a Protocol")
- The components of your framework become the concepts in your [Boolean search strings](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/conducting-your-search "Conducting Your Search")

---

## Choosing a Framework

Different frameworks suit different types of research questions. The table below helps you select the right one.

<table id="bkmrk-framework-best-suite"><thead><tr><th>Framework</th><th>Best suited to</th><th>Research types</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>**PICO**</td><td>Questions about the *effect* of something</td><td>Quantitative, experimental</td></tr><tr><td>**SPIDER**</td><td>Questions about *experiences, perceptions, or behaviors*</td><td>Qualitative, mixed-methods</td></tr><tr><td>**PCC**</td><td>Questions about *what exists* in a topic area (scoping)</td><td>Exploratory, mapping reviews</td></tr></tbody></table>

As a business or management student, you will most often use **SPIDER** or **PCC**, since many management questions ask "how" or "what" rather than "does X cause Y."

### The PICO Framework

**Stands for:** Population · Intervention · Comparison · Outcome

Originally developed for clinical research, PICO is useful when your question tests whether a specific practice, policy, or programme produces a measurable result. It is less common in pure management research but relevant if your thesis touches on organisational interventions, training effectiveness, or behavioral economics.

<table id="bkmrk-element-question-to-"><thead><tr><th>Element</th><th>Question to ask yourself</th><th>Example</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>**P**opulation</td><td>Who or what is the focus?</td><td>SMEs in the EU retail sector</td></tr><tr><td>**I**ntervention</td><td>What practice or factor is being examined?</td><td>Agile project management adoption</td></tr><tr><td>**C**omparison</td><td>What is it being compared to?</td><td>Traditional waterfall project management</td></tr><tr><td>**O**utcome</td><td>What result are you measuring?</td><td>Employee productivity and project delivery speed</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Resulting question:** *In EU retail SMEs (P), does adopting agile project management (I) compared to traditional methods (C) improve employee productivity and delivery speed (O)?*

---

### The SPIDER Framework

**Stands for:** Sample · Phenomenon of Interest · Design · Evaluation · Research type

SPIDER was developed specifically for qualitative and mixed-methods research, where the concept of an "intervention" does not apply. It is well-suited to management questions about how people experience organisational phenomena such as leadership styles, workplace culture, or sustainability reporting.

<table id="bkmrk-element-question-to--1"><thead><tr><th>Element</th><th>Question to ask yourself</th><th>Example</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>**S**ample</td><td>Who is the population being studied?</td><td>Mid-level managers in multinational corporations</td></tr><tr><td>**P**henomenon of Interest</td><td>What experience, behavior, or issue is the focus?</td><td>Remote work and perceived organisational belonging</td></tr><tr><td>**I**nfluencing factors</td><td>What contextual factors are relevant?</td><td>Post-pandemic hybrid work policies</td></tr><tr><td>**D**esign</td><td>What study designs will you include?</td><td>Interviews, surveys, case studies</td></tr><tr><td>**E**valuation</td><td>What outcome or concept is being assessed?</td><td>Employee engagement, retention intention</td></tr><tr><td>**R**esearch type</td><td>Qualitative, quantitative, or mixed?</td><td>Qualitative or mixed-methods</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Resulting question:** *How do mid-level managers in multinationals (S) experience organisational belonging in remote/hybrid work environments (P), as shaped by post-pandemic policies (I), across qualitative and mixed-methods studies (D/R)?*

---

### The PCC Framework

**Stands for:** Population · Concept · Context

PCC is used for **scoping reviews**, a type of SLR designed to map the existing literature on a topic rather than answer a narrow effectiveness question. It is appropriate when your research question is exploratory: you want to know what has been written about a subject, identify key themes, or find gaps before proposing a more targeted study.

<table id="bkmrk-element-question-to--2"><thead><tr><th>Element</th><th>Question to ask yourself</th><th>Example</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>**P**opulation</td><td>Who or what is the subject of study?</td><td>Family-owned businesses</td></tr><tr><td>**C**oncept</td><td>What is the core idea or issue?</td><td>Succession planning practices</td></tr><tr><td>**C**ontext</td><td>In what setting, geography, or timeframe?</td><td>European markets, 2010–2025</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Resulting question:** *What does the literature report about succession planning practices (C) in family-owned businesses (P) in European markets between 2010 and 2025 (C)?*

---

## Practical Tips

- **Write your question down before searching.** Even one sentence written out forces clarity.
- **Test with your supervisor.** A good question should take no more than two sentences to explain to someone unfamiliar with the topic.
- **Iterate, but only once.** It is normal to refine your question slightly after initial scoping searches reveal how much literature exists. Finalise it before formal data collection begins and document any changes in your protocol.
- **Avoid "and" creep.** A question such as "What is the effect of leadership style on innovation and employee wellbeing and retention?" is three questions in one. Pick the most important element for your thesis argument.
- **Check for existing reviews first.** Before committing to your question, run a quick search in PROSPERO (crd.york.ac.uk/prospero) or Google Scholar to confirm a recent SLR on exactly your question does not already exist. Finding one is not a dead end; it means you can build on it, update it, or narrow your scope in response to it.
- **Keep your framework visible throughout.** Pin your completed framework table beside your workstation. Every element becomes a [search concept in later steps](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/conducting-your-search "Conducting Your Search"); consistency between your question and your search string is one of the first things an examiner will check.

---

## From Question to Search: A Preview

The components of your framework map directly onto the concepts in your Boolean search string. Each element becomes a concept block, and synonyms for each element become OR-connected terms within that block. The blocks are then connected with AND.

Using the PICO example above:

<table id="bkmrk-framework-element-co"><thead><tr><th>Framework element</th><th>Concept block</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Population: EU retail SMEs</td><td>`"SME*" OR "small firm*" OR "small business*"` AND `(Europe* OR "European Union")`</td></tr><tr><td>Intervention: agile project management</td><td>`"agile" OR "scrum" OR "kanban" OR "agile project management"`</td></tr><tr><td>Outcome: productivity, delivery speed</td><td>`"employee productivity" OR "project delivery" OR "delivery speed"`</td></tr></tbody></table>

This mapping is covered in full in [Conducting Your Search](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/conducting-your-search "Conducting Your Search"). The point here is that a well-structured question makes the search string nearly self-evident; a vague question makes it nearly impossible.

# Self-Assessment Checklist for Your SLR Search

This checklist, adapted from vom [Brocke et al. (2015)](https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03709), helps you evaluate whether your search meets the standards of rigor expected in a systematic review. Use it at three stages: before you search, while searching, and after completing your search.

## Before the Literature Search

- [ ] I have developed an understanding of the topic through preliminary reading
- [ ] I have justified why a literature review is necessary (addressed in my protocol background section)
- [ ] I have defined an appropriate search scope (inclusion/exclusion criteria are documented)
- [ ] I have assessed the feasibility and coverage of my planned search (tested search strings, confirmed database access)

## During the Literature Search

- [ ] I tested alternative search approaches (tried different combinations of terms, checked controlled vocabulary)
- [ ] I used justifiable search techniques and parameters (Boolean operators, truncation, filters documented)
- [ ] I applied appropriate criteria for inclusion and exclusion consistently
- [ ] I documented every search in my logbook (database, date, string, results count)

## After the Literature Search

- [ ] I assessed the sensitivity and specificity of my search (did it retrieve known-relevant papers? did it exclude obviously irrelevant ones?)
- [ ] I rigorously documented the search process and results (logbook complete, PRISMA numbers recorded)
- [ ] I compared my results with those of other reviews on similar topics (if available)
- [ ] I collected feedback from my supervisor on the search strategy and results

---

**Reference:** vom Brocke, J. et al. (2015). Standing on the shoulders of giants: Challenges and recommendations of literature search in information systems research. *Communications of the Association for Information Systems*, 37. [doi:10.17705/1CAIS.03709](https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03709)

# Writing a Protocol

## Overview

A protocol is a written plan that specifies, **in advance**, exactly how you intend to conduct your systematic literature review. It is not complete until all 11/12 sub-sections below have been worked through and recorded. Writing the protocol is not a bureaucratic hurdle; it is the mechanism that makes your review transparent, reproducible, and defensible to examiners, supervisors, and future readers.

The protocol has two functions. First, it forces you to make every methodological decision before you are influenced by seeing results. Second, it creates a timestamped record of those decisions so that any deviation from the plan is visible and requires justification.

**Do not begin searching until your protocol is complete and your supervisor has reviewed it.**

---

## What a Protocol Contains

The table below lists all required sections. Each is explained in detail in the sub-sections that follow.

<table id="bkmrk-section-what-it-reco" style="width:100%;"><thead><tr><th style="width:14.2093%;">Section</th><th style="width:85.7907%;">What it records</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td style="width:14.2093%;">Title</td><td style="width:85.7907%;">Working title of the review</td></tr><tr><td style="width:14.2093%;">Background</td><td style="width:85.7907%;">Brief rationale: why this topic, why an SLR, why now</td></tr><tr><td style="width:14.2093%;">Research question</td><td style="width:85.7907%;">Your structured question from [the previous step](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/define-your-research-question-select-framework "Define Your Research Question & Select Framework"), using PICO, SPIDER, or PCC</td></tr><tr><td style="width:14.2093%;">Eligibility criteria</td><td style="width:85.7907%;">Explicit inclusion and exclusion rules</td></tr><tr><td style="width:14.2093%;">Search strategy</td><td style="width:85.7907%;">Databases, search strings, supplementary methods</td></tr><tr><td style="width:14.2093%;">Screening process</td><td style="width:85.7907%;">Phases, tools, screeners, conflict resolution</td></tr><tr><td style="width:14.2093%;">Quality appraisal</td><td style="width:85.7907%;">Tool selected and how scores will affect inclusion</td></tr><tr><td style="width:14.2093%;">Data extraction</td><td style="width:85.7907%;">Fields to be collected and who will extract</td></tr><tr><td style="width:14.2093%;">Synthesis method</td><td style="width:85.7907%;">Narrative, thematic, or meta-analytic approach</td></tr><tr><td style="width:14.2093%;">Timeline</td><td style="width:85.7907%;">Planned dates for each stage</td></tr><tr><td style="width:14.2093%;">Registration</td><td style="width:85.7907%;">PROSPERO or OSF registration number, or a statement of why registration was not pursued</td></tr><tr><td style="width:14.2093%;">Protocol Amendments</td><td style="width:85.7907%;">Any changes made to the protocol after searching begins: the date of each change, the section affected, the original wording, and the reason for the change. This section is blank at submission and completed during the review process. All amendments must be disclosed in the thesis methods chapter.</td></tr></tbody></table>

For a thesis-level SLR, the protocol will typically run two to four pages. A downloadable template covering all sections is available [here](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/attachments/3).

---

## Why a Protocol Matters

The core risk in any literature review is unconscious bias: the tendency to favor studies that confirm what you already expect to find. A pre-registered protocol addresses this directly by committing you to your methods before you have seen the results. Specifically, a protocol:

- **Prevents outcome-driven decisions.** Without a protocol, it is easy to quietly shift your inclusion criteria after seeing which studies support your argument. A protocol makes any such deviation visible and requires justification.
- **Supports reproducibility.** Another researcher following your protocol should be able to replicate your search and arrive at substantially the same set of included studies.
- **Strengthens your thesis.** Examiners can evaluate the rigor of your method independently of your findings. A well-written protocol demonstrates systematic thinking before you have produced a single result.
- **Saves time downstream.** Decisions made in the protocol (date ranges, languages, study types) do not have to be renegotiated at each subsequent stage.

---

## Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility criteria are the explicit rules that determine which studies are included in or excluded from your review. They are derived directly from your research question: each element of your PICO, SPIDER, or PCC framework suggests at least one criterion.

Criteria are divided into two types:

- **Inclusion criteria** define the characteristics a study must have to be eligible. Every included study must meet all inclusion criteria.
- **Exclusion criteria** define characteristics that disqualify a study, even if it otherwise appears relevant. Exclusion criteria often address practical constraints (language, access, study quality) rather than topic relevance.

### Common Criterion Categories

<table id="bkmrk-category-example-inc"><thead><tr><th>Category</th><th>Example inclusion criterion</th><th>Example exclusion criterion</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>**Publication date**</td><td>Published between January 2015 and December 2025</td><td>Published before 2015</td></tr><tr><td>**Language**</td><td>Written in English or German</td><td>Written in any other language</td></tr><tr><td>**Document type**</td><td>Peer-reviewed journal articles and conference papers</td><td>Editorials, opinion pieces, book reviews, dissertations</td></tr><tr><td>**Study design**</td><td>Empirical studies (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods)</td><td>Purely conceptual or theoretical papers</td></tr><tr><td>**Geographic scope**</td><td>Studies conducted in EU member states</td><td>Studies conducted outside Europe</td></tr><tr><td>**Population/context**</td><td>Studies focused on SMEs</td><td>Studies focused exclusively on large corporations</td></tr><tr><td>**Relevance**</td><td>Studies directly addressing the phenomenon of interest</td><td>Studies mentioning the topic only incidentally</td></tr></tbody></table>

### Why Criteria Must Be Pre-Specified

Criteria written after you have seen the results of your search are retrospective and therefore biased. If you find yourself wanting to exclude a specific study because it complicates your synthesis, that is a signal to engage with it more carefully, not to rewrite a criterion. Any change to criteria after searching begins is a protocol amendment and must be documented.

### Testing Your Criteria

Before finalizing your criteria, test them against five to ten records from a preliminary search: a mix of obviously relevant, obviously irrelevant, and borderline papers. If you cannot apply the criteria consistently to this small sample, they need further specification before you proceed to full screening.

---

## Search Strategy

Your search strategy records exactly how you will find the literature. It has three components.

**Databases:** List every database you will search. For business and management research, the standard set is [Business Source Ultimate (EBSCO) and JSTOR](https://library.whitecliffe.de/cgi-bin/koha/opac-page.pl?page_id=24). Google Scholar may be used supplementarily for grey literature. The rationale for including each database should be noted briefly (coverage of the discipline, access to specific journal types, etc.).

**Search strings:** Document the complete Boolean search string you will use in each database. Strings are built from the concepts in your research question framework, with synonyms connected by OR and concepts connected by AND. If strings vary between databases due to different controlled vocabularies, record each variation. Full guidance on constructing strings is provided in [Conducting Your Search](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/conducting-your-search "Conducting Your Search").

**Supplementary methods:** Document any additional search methods beyond database searching. The most important of these is snowballing, a technique in which you trace citations forward and backward from a confirmed set of relevant papers. Backward snowballing examines the reference lists of included studies to find earlier relevant work; forward snowballing uses citation databases (Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science) to find later papers that have cited an included study. Snowballing is particularly valuable in management research, where relevant work may be published in practitioner journals or conference proceedings not fully indexed in major databases.

[![Phase 1. Extraction of relevant literature.png](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/uploads/images/gallery/2026-02/scaled-1680-/phase-1-extraction-of-relevant-literature.png)](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/uploads/images/gallery/2026-02/phase-1-extraction-of-relevant-literature.png)  
<sub> "Phase 1 of the Bandara et al. SLR process: extraction of relevant literature" by Hasan Koç is licensed under [CC BY-NC-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), based on [Bandara et al., 2015](https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03708).</sub>

---

## Screening Process

The screening process section of your protocol records how you will apply your eligibility criteria to the records returned by your search. It should specify:

- The two phases of screening (title/abstract, then full text) and what decisions are made at each phase
- The tool you will use (e.g. Rayyan or a spreadsheet)
- Who will screen (solo screening is acceptable at thesis level but must be stated as a limitation)
- What you will do with full texts that cannot be retrieved

Full guidance on conducting screening is provided in [Screening the Results](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/screening-the-results "Screening the Results").

---

## Quality Appraisal Approach

The quality appraisal section of your protocol specifies how you will assess the methodological rigor of included studies. Record:

- The appraisal tool you will use and why it is appropriate for your study types (CASP, MMAT, or JBI; all are free)
- Whether studies scoring below a threshold will be excluded, or whether all studies will be retained with quality noted in the synthesis
- Who will appraise (solo appraisal is acceptable at thesis level)

This decision must be made before appraising any study. Deciding post-hoc to exclude low-quality studies after seeing their findings is a form of bias. Full guidance on quality appraisal is provided in [Appraise Study Quality](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/appraise-study-quality "Appraise Study Quality").

You will also be asked, at the end of your review, to evaluate the rigor of your own process using the self-assessment rubric on [Evaluating Your Own SLR Process](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/evaluating-your-own-slr-process "Evaluating Your Own SLR Process").

---

## Data Extraction and Synthesis Method

**Data extraction:** Specify the fields you will extract from each included study and the format of your extraction form (typically a spreadsheet). At minimum, record: author, year, country, methodology, sample, key findings, theoretical framework, limitations, and quality appraisal rating. A blank copy of your extraction form should be included as a thesis appendix. Full guidance is provided in [Extract Data](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/extract-data "Extract Data").

**Synthesis method:** State whether you will use narrative synthesis, thematic synthesis, or meta-analysis, and briefly justify the choice in relation to your research question and expected study types. Even a one-sentence commitment ("findings will be synthesised narratively using thematic grouping") is sufficient at protocol stage. Full guidance on synthesis approaches is provided in [Synthesise and Report](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/synthesize-and-report "Synthesise and Report").

---

## Timeline

Provide estimated completion dates for each stage. A systematic review takes significantly longer than most students anticipate; building in buffer time is essential.

<table id="bkmrk-stage-planned-comple"><thead><tr><th>Stage</th><th>Planned completion date</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Protocol finalised and supervisor-approved</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>Database searches completed</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>Title/abstract screening completed</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>Full-text screening completed</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>Quality appraisal completed</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>Data extraction completed</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>Synthesis and write-up completed</td><td> </td></tr></tbody></table>

---

## Protocol Registration (Optional)

Registering your protocol with an external repository creates a timestamped, publicly accessible record of your planned methods. This is optional for most student theses but is increasingly expected in academic publishing and demonstrates a high standard of rigor.

### PROSPERO

PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews), hosted by the University of York, accepts reviews from health, social science, education, welfare, and business contexts. Registration is free and requires an ORCID iD. Note that PROSPERO does not accept scoping reviews; use OSF for those.

- URL: [crd.york.ac.uk/prospero](https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/)

### OSF (Open Science Framework)

The OSF, maintained by the Center for Open Science, accepts protocol registrations for any discipline with no topic restrictions. It is the more flexible option for management, design, or interdisciplinary business research, and accepts scoping reviews.

- URL: [osf.io](https://osf.io/)

### When Registration Is Not Required

Registration is not a formal requirement for most taught or research master's theses. If you do not register, state this explicitly in your methods chapter and give a brief reason (for example, the review is a thesis component rather than a standalone publication). Do not simply omit the topic.

---

## Amendments to the Protocol

Any change made to the protocol after searching begins must be recorded as a formal amendment. For each amendment, document:

- The date of the change
- Which section was changed and what the original wording was
- The reason for the change

Amendments are not a sign of failure; they are a sign of transparency. What is not acceptable is changing methods silently to accommodate inconvenient results. Include the amendments log as an appendix in your thesis.

---

## Common Mistakes to Avoid

<div class="callout warning" id="bkmrk-writing-the-protocol">- **Writing the protocol after searching.** A retrospective protocol defeats its purpose entirely.
- **Being too vague.** "Recent articles in English" is not a criterion; "peer-reviewed journal articles in English or German, published between January 2015 and December 2025" is.
- **Separating the criteria from the protocol.** Eligibility criteria are a section of the protocol, not a prior step. Do not finalise them in isolation.
- **Leaving the synthesis section blank.** Students frequently specify their search in detail but leave synthesis unaddressed. Commit to a method before you begin.
- **Not getting supervisor sign-off.** The protocol review is a checkpoint, not a formality. A supervisor who has approved your protocol cannot later object that your method was inappropriate.

</div>

# Conducting Your Search

## Overview

This step translates the search strategy you documented in your [protocol](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/writing-a-protocol) into actual database queries, records the results systematically, and prepares a clean, deduplicated set of references for screening. Precision and documentation at this stage are critical: every decision you make must be recorded so that your search can be reported transparently in your final thesis.

---

## Before You Begin

Confirm the following are in place before opening any database:

- [ ] Your research question is finalized
- [ ] Your inclusion and exclusion criteria are written down
- [ ] Your search strings are drafted for each database
- [ ] Your reference manager ([Zotero](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/citation-management-software)) is installed and a new collection has been created for this review
- [ ] Your protocol has been reviewed by your supervisor

When your search is complete, use the [**<span class="text-box-trim-both">Search Quality Self-Assessment Checklist</span>**](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/self-assessment-checklist-for-your-slr-search "Self-Assessment Checklist for Your SLR Search") to verify the search meets the standards of a rigorous systematic review. The checklist covers what to confirm before, during, and after searching.

---

## Set Up Your Search Logbook

A search logbook is a running record of every search action you take. It is distinct from your protocol: the protocol records what you *planned* to do; the logbook records what you *actually did*. Both are required for a transparent, reportable review.

Your logbook should record, for every search:

<table id="bkmrk-field-example-databa"><thead><tr><th>Field</th><th>Example</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Database</td><td>Business Source Ultimate (EBSCO)</td></tr><tr><td>Date of search</td><td>2026-02-23</td></tr><tr><td>Search string used</td><td>("sustainability reporting" OR "CSR disclosure") AND ("SME\*" OR "small firm\*") AND (Europe\*)</td></tr><tr><td>Filters applied</td><td>Peer-reviewed; 2015–2025; English</td></tr><tr><td>Number of results</td><td>347</td></tr><tr><td>Notes</td><td>Reran with "non-financial reporting" added; 412 results</td></tr></tbody></table>

A simple spreadsheet works well for this purpose. The logbook feeds directly into the PRISMA flow diagram you will produce during write-up, so keep it current throughout.

---

## Search Each Database

Execute your search strings in the order listed in your protocol. The recommended databases for business and management research at this institution are listed below, with notes on their particular strengths.

<table id="bkmrk-database-strengths-a"><thead><tr><th>Database</th><th>Strengths</th><th>Access</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>**Business Source Ultimate (EBSCO)**</td><td>Largest business-specific database; covers management, finance, marketing, HRM, economics; includes trade publications alongside peer-reviewed journals</td><td>Via [Research Database Index](https://library.whitecliffe.de/cgi-bin/koha/opac-page.pl?page_id=24)</td></tr><tr><td>**JSTOR**</td><td>Strong for older foundational literature (pre-2010); humanities and social sciences including business history</td><td>Via [Research Database Index](https://library.whitecliffe.de/cgi-bin/koha/opac-page.pl?page_id=24)</td></tr><tr><td>**Google Scholar**</td><td>Useful for supplementary grey literature and thesis searches; not suitable as a primary database due to lack of advanced filtering and inconsistent coverage</td><td>[Free](https://scholar.google.com/schhp?hl=en); use supplementary only</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Search each database independently.** Do not rely on a single database regardless of how many results it returns; coverage varies significantly between databases, and a study that appears in JSTOR may not be indexed in Business Source Ultimate, and vice versa.

---

## Constructing Effective Search Strings

If your strings from the protocol stage need refinement when you arrive at a database interface, follow these principles.

### Boolean Operators

Three operators control how search terms are combined:

- **OR** broadens your search: use it to connect synonyms and variant terms for the same concept. Example: `"remote work" OR "telework" OR "working from home"`
- **AND** narrows your search: use it to connect different concepts that must both appear. Example: `"remote work" AND "employee engagement"`
- **NOT** excludes terms: use sparingly, as it can unintentionally remove relevant records. Example: `"sustainability" NOT "environmental science"`

### Phrase Searching

Enclose multi-word concepts in quotation marks to search for the exact phrase rather than the individual words. Example: `"knowledge management"` rather than `knowledge management`.

### Truncation and Wildcards

Most databases support truncation with an asterisk (`*`) to capture variant word endings:

- `organis*` captures organise, organisation, organisational, organising
- `sustain*` captures sustain, sustainability, sustainable, sustained

Check each database's documentation, as wildcard characters vary: EBSCO uses `*` and `?`; Web of Science uses `*`, `?`, and `$`.

### Controlled Vocabulary

Many databases use a subject thesaurus to index articles with standardised terms regardless of the words an author used. Using these terms improves recall significantly:

- **EBSCO Business Source Ultimate**: use the EBSCO Subject Thesaurus (available in the database interface under "Subject Terms")

Combining controlled vocabulary terms with free-text keywords in the same search string gives the best coverage. Example: `(DE "employee engagement") OR ("employee engagement" OR "work engagement" OR "job involvement")`

<p class="callout info">For more information on constructing search queries, review [Advanced Search Techniques](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/advanced-search-techniques) and [Making the most of Generative AI](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/link/61#bkmrk-enhancing-search-que).</p>

### An Example

**Research question:** How do sustainability reporting practices in European SMEs influence investor decision-making?

<table id="bkmrk-concept-synonyms-and"><thead><tr><th>Concept</th><th>Synonyms and variants</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Sustainability reporting</td><td>"sustainability reporting", "CSR disclosure", "non-financial reporting", "ESG reporting", "integrated reporting"</td></tr><tr><td>European SMEs</td><td>"SME\*", "small firm\*", "small business\*", Europe\*, "European Union"</td></tr><tr><td>Investor decision-making</td><td>"investor behavior", "investment decision\*", "capital allocation", "shareholder\*"</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Combined string:**

```
("sustainability reporting" OR "CSR disclosure" OR "non-financial reporting" OR "ESG reporting")
AND
("SME*" OR "small firm*" OR "small business*")
AND
(Europe* OR "European Union")
AND
("investor behavior" OR "investment decision*" OR "capital allocation")
```

---

## Testing and Iterating Your Search

Before committing to a final string, run test searches to calibrate your results.

- **Too many results (over 1,000):** Add an additional AND concept, apply stricter filters (date range, document type), or use more specific terminology
- **Too few results (under twenty):** Remove an AND concept, broaden synonyms using OR, check whether your terminology matches the vocabulary used in the field, or widen the date range
- **Zero results:** Check for syntax errors (mismatched quotation marks or parentheses), try individual concepts separately to identify which combination is causing the problem

A useful calibration technique is to take three to five papers you already know are relevant to your topic and verify that your search string retrieves them. If a known-relevant paper is not found, revise the string before proceeding.

### Example: Iterating a Search

**Initial search:** `"government branding" AND communication`  
**Database:** Web of Science  
**Results:** 1,856 hits (too many to screen)

**Refinement 1:** Added language and document type filters (English, journal articles only)  
**Results:** 1,626 hits

**Refinement 2:** Added date range filter (2000–2021)  
**Results:** 1,553 hits (manageable for screening)

**Documented in logbook:** Three iterations recorded with reasons for each refinement.

This iterative approach is normal and expected; document each iteration in your search logbook rather than only recording the final string.

---

## Export and Deduplicate References

Once you are satisfied with your search strings and have run them across all databases, export all results and combine them into a single reference set.

### Exporting from Databases

Export records in **RIS format** (also called .ris or "citation export"), which is compatible with [Zotero](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/citation-management-software "Citation Management Software") and all major screening tools. Export the full record including abstract, author, year, journal, and DOI. Do not export title-only records.

### Importing into Zotero

1. In Zotero, create a new collection named for your review (e.g., "SLR — Sustainability Reporting SMEs")
2. Import each database export file: File → Import → select your .ris file
3. Repeat for each database export
4. All records will now appear together in the collection

### Deduplication

The same article will often appear in multiple databases. Duplicates must be removed before screening begins, as screening the same paper twice distorts your counts and PRISMA numbers.

- **In Zotero:** select all items in your collection → right-click → "Find Duplicates." Zotero will flag probable duplicates for manual review and merging. Note that Zotero's deduplication is not perfect; a manual check is advisable for smaller datasets
- **In Rayyan or Covidence:** both tools include automatic deduplication when you upload your reference files, and this is often more reliable than Zotero for large datasets

Record the total number of records before and after deduplication in your search logbook. Both figures are required for the PRISMA flow diagram.

---

## Supplementary Search Methods

### Snowballing

Database searching alone may miss relevant studies published in venues not fully indexed or using terminology that differs from your search string. **Snowballing** addresses this by tracing citations forward and backward from a confirmed set of relevant papers.

[![SLR Process by (Wohlin 2014).png](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/uploads/images/gallery/2026-02/scaled-1680-/slr-process-by-wohlin-2014.png)](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/uploads/images/gallery/2026-02/slr-process-by-wohlin-2014.png)  
<sub> "Snowball-centred SLR process" by Hasan Koç is licensed under [CC BY-NC-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), based on [Wohlin (2014)](https://doi.org/10.1145/2601248.2601268).</sub>

#### Backward Snowballing

Review the reference lists of your included studies to identify earlier work that was not retrieved by your database search. This is particularly valuable for foundational studies that established key concepts in your topic area.

#### Forward Snowballing

Use citation databases (Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus if available) to identify later papers that have cited an included study. This captures recent work that builds on established findings.

<details id="bkmrk-illustration-%22iterat"><summary>Illustration</summary>

[![SnowballPaper.png](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/uploads/images/gallery/2026-02/scaled-1680-/snowballpaper.png)](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/uploads/images/gallery/2026-02/snowballpaper.png)  
<sub> "Iterative backward and forward snowballing across six iterations" by Hasan Koç is licensed under [CC BY-NC-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), based on [Wohlin (2014)](https://doi.org/10.1145/2601248.2601268).</sub>

</details>#### When to Apply Snowballing

Snowballing is not a replacement for systematic database searching; it is a supplement applied after your initial screening phase when you have a confirmed set of relevant studies. Record all snowballing activity in your search logbook: the source paper, the direction (forward or backward), and the number of additional records identified.

For an indepth discussion of snowballing, see:

- Wohlin, C. (2014). Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. In *Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering* (pp. 1–10). ACM. [doi:10.1145/2601248.2601268](https://doi.org/10.1145/2601248.2601268)

### Checking Grey Literature

Depending on your topic, relevant evidence may exist outside peer-reviewed journals. Grey literature includes reports from industry bodies, government agencies, NGOs, think tanks, and working papers. For business research, relevant sources include:

- **European Commission** (ec.europa.eu): policy documents, impact assessments, sector reports
- **OECD iLibrary** (oecd-ilibrary.org): working papers and statistical reports, free access
- [**Statista**](https://library.whitecliffe.de/cgi-bin/koha/opac-page.pl?page_id=24): industry statistics and market research (access via library portal)
- **SSRN** (ssrn.com): pre-prints and working papers in economics, finance, and management, free access

Grey literature is generally searched manually rather than by Boolean string. Record any sources checked and the date of search in your logbook, even if they yield no results.

---

## Common Mistakes to Avoid

<div class="callout warning" id="bkmrk-searching-without-a-">- **Searching without a documented string.** Running an undocumented search cannot be reported or replicated.
- **Using only one database.** No single database covers the full scope of business and management literature.
- **Forgetting to record the search date.** Database content changes; the date is required for your methods section.
- **Exporting only titles.** Abstracts are required for the screening stage; always export full records.
- **Deduplicating by eye only.** Manual deduplication of large datasets is unreliable; use a tool.

</div>

# Screening the Results

## Overview

Screening is the process of applying your pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria to the deduplicated set of references produced earlier, in order to identify the studies that will form the basis of your review. It proceeds in two sequential phases: first by title and abstract, then by full text. Each phase reduces the total set further; only studies that pass both phases are included in your final review.

<p class="callout warning">Screening is the step most vulnerable to unconscious bias. The discipline of applying your criteria consistently, rather than on a case-by-case intuitive basis, is what separates a systematic review from an informal one.</p>

---

## Prepare for Screening

Before beginning, confirm the following:

- [ ] Your inclusion and exclusion criteria are written out explicitly (not held in your head)
- [ ] Your deduplicated reference set has been imported into your screening tool
- [ ] You have conducted a short calibration exercise (see below)

### Calibration

Before screening the full dataset, test your criteria against a small sample of twenty to thirty records drawn randomly from your reference set. Apply the criteria independently, then compare decisions. This exercise helps surface edge cases and sharpen your application of the criteria.

---

## Phase 1: Title and Abstract Screening

In the first phase, you review the title and abstract of every record in your deduplicated set and make a binary decision: include (proceed to full-text screening) or exclude (remove from the set, with reason recorded).

### Decision Rules

- **Include** any record where the title and abstract suggest the study *could* meet your criteria. When in doubt at this phase, include rather than exclude; you will assess more carefully in Phase 2.
- **Exclude** only when you are confident the record does not meet one or more criteria. Record which criterion it fails.
- **Cannot determine:** if the abstract is absent or too brief to judge, mark the record for full-text retrieval. Do not exclude on the basis of insufficient information.

### Recording Exclusions

For every excluded record, note the primary reason for exclusion using the categories from your inclusion/exclusion criteria. Example reasons:

- Outside date range
- Not peer-reviewed
- Not relevant to research question
- Wrong population or context
- Language not covered by criteria
- Duplicate not caught in deduplication

These reasons feed directly into the PRISMA flow diagram. You do not need to record a reason for every individual exclusion; recording the category count is sufficient (e.g., "247 excluded: wrong topic; 43 excluded: outside date range").

---

## Phase 2: Full-Text Screening

Records that pass Phase 1 are retrieved in full and assessed against the complete set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Full-text screening is more demanding than title/abstract screening because you are working with the entire paper and must make a definitive inclusion decision.

### Retrieving Full Texts

- If you don't already have the full texts, search [library databases](https://library.whitecliffe.de/cgi-bin/koha/opac-page.pl?page_id=24)
- For items not available through the library databases: contact the library reference desk
- For preprints or working papers, check **SSRN** (ssrn.com) or the author's institutional repository
- If a full text genuinely cannot be obtained after reasonable effort, record it as "full text not retrievable" in your PRISMA count; do not exclude it silently

### Assessing Full Texts

Read at minimum the abstract, introduction, methods section, and conclusion of each paper. You do not need to read every paper cover to cover at this stage; the goal is to confirm eligibility, not to extract data. Focus on:

- Does the study actually investigate the population and phenomenon specified in your research question?
- Does the methodology match the study types in your inclusion criteria?
- Is the publication context (journal, conference, report type) within scope?
- Does the date of data collection (not just publication) fall within your date range?

Record a clear reason for every full-text exclusion. At this phase, vague reasons such as "not relevant" are insufficient; specify which criterion was not met.

---

## Screening Tools

### Rayyan (Recommended for most students)

Rayyan (rayyan.ai) is a free, web-based screening tool designed specifically for systematic reviews. Key features:

- Allows labelling of exclusion reasons
- Exports screening decisions for the PRISMA diagram
- No software installation required; browser-based
- Free for individual and small team use

**To get started:** create a free account at rayyan.ai, create a new review, and upload your .ris export files. Rayyan deduplicates on import.

### Spreadsheet (Fallback Option)

An Excel or LibreOffice Calc spreadsheet with one row per reference, columns for title, abstract, Phase 1 decision, Phase 2 decision, and exclusion reason is a fully acceptable approach for smaller datasets (under 500 records). It requires more manual discipline but has no access barriers.

---

## Produce the PRISMA Flow Diagram

At the conclusion of screening, compile the following counts from your logbook and screening tool:

1. Total records identified across all databases
2. Total records after deduplication
3. Records excluded at title/abstract screening (with reason categories)
4. Full texts sought
5. Full texts not retrievable
6. Full texts excluded (with reason categories)
7. Studies included in the final review

These numbers populate the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram, a standardised visual representation of the screening process. A pre-formatted Word version of the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram is available [here](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/attachments/4). Complete it as you go; do not attempt to reconstruct the numbers from memory at write-up stage.

---

## Common Mistakes to Avoid

<div class="callout warning" id="bkmrk-applying-criteria-in">- **Applying criteria inconsistently.** If you find yourself making exceptions, revisit the written criteria rather than bending them for individual records.
- **Excluding at Phase 1 on a hunch.** If an abstract is ambiguous, include it for full-text review rather than excluding it.
- **Not recording exclusion reasons.** Without reasons, the PRISMA diagram cannot be completed and your methods section cannot be written.
- **Screener fatigue.** For large datasets, screen in sessions of no more than ninety minutes. Fatigue measurably increases inconsistency.
- **Conflating screening with data extraction.** Screening answers only one question: does this study meet the eligibility criteria? Deeper engagement with content comes later.

</div>

# Appraise Study Quality

## Overview

Quality appraisal is the systematic assessment of the methodological rigor of each study included after screening. It answers the question: how much confidence can we place in the findings of this study? Appraisal does not judge whether a study is interesting or relevant (screening already established relevance); it judges whether the study was conducted in a way that makes its findings trustworthy.

Quality appraisal is mandatory in a rigorous SLR. Omitting it means you treat a poorly designed survey and a well-designed longitudinal study as equally credible evidence, which undermines the validity of your synthesis.

---

## What Quality Appraisal Assesses

Appraisal criteria vary by study type, but the core questions are consistent across tools:

- Is the research question or aim clearly stated?
- Is the methodology appropriate to the research question?
- Is the sample or data source described and justified?
- Are data collection procedures transparent and consistent?
- Are the analysis methods appropriate and described in sufficient detail?
- Are the findings clearly presented and supported by the data?
- Are the limitations acknowledged by the authors?

No study is perfect. The goal of appraisal is not to exclude everything with weaknesses but to provide an honest account of the evidence base and to weight your synthesis accordingly.

---

## Decide Before You Appraise

Two decisions must be made in your [protocol](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/writing-a-protocol) and applied consistently here:

### Will quality scores affect inclusion?

You have two options:

- **Threshold-based exclusion:** studies scoring below a defined threshold are excluded from the review. This produces a higher-quality evidence base but risks excluding the only available evidence on niche topics. If you use a threshold, state it in your protocol before appraising (e.g., "studies scoring below 50% on the CASP checklist will be excluded").
- **Retain all, note quality in synthesis:** all studies passing screening are included, but quality scores are reported alongside findings and used to qualify the strength of evidence in your discussion. This is the more common approach in business and management SLRs, where evidence bases are often smaller and more heterogeneous.

Either approach is defensible; what is not defensible is deciding after seeing the scores.

### Who will appraise?

As with screening, appraisal by two independent reviewers with a conflict resolution process is the gold standard. **For a thesis-level review, solo appraisal is acceptable but should be stated as a limitation in your methods chapter.**

---

## Selecting an Appraisal Tool

Choose your tool based on the study types in your included set. All three tools listed below are freely available with no registration required.

### CASP Checklists

**Access:** [casp-uk.net](https://casp-uk.net/) (direct PDF download, no registration)

The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklists are the most accessible entry point for students new to quality appraisal. Each checklist is short (ten to twelve questions with yes/no/can't tell responses) and includes guidance notes. Separate checklists exist for:

- Qualitative studies
- Randomised controlled trials
- Cohort studies
- Case-control studies
- Systematic reviews
- Economic evaluations
- Diagnostic test studies

For most business and management SLRs, the **qualitative checklist** will be the primary tool. If your included studies are methodologically mixed, you will need to apply different checklists to different study types and note which checklist was used for each study in your data extraction form.

### Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT)

**Access:** [mcgill.ca](https://www.mcgill.ca/familymed/research/resources/funding/mmat) (free PDF download from McGill University)

The MMAT is the strongest choice when your included studies span multiple methodological types, since a single tool handles qualitative, quantitative descriptive, quantitative randomised, quantitative non-randomised, and mixed-methods studies consistently. Each category has five criteria, allowing cross-study comparison of quality scores within a heterogeneous dataset.

The MMAT does not produce a numerical score; instead, each criterion is rated yes, no, or can't tell. This is intentional: the authors explicitly caution against summing scores into a single quality number, as this can create false precision.

### JBI Critical Appraisal Tools

**Access:** [jbi.global ](https://jbi.global/)(free PDF download, no registration)

The Joanna Briggs Institute tools are comparable in accessibility to CASP and provide thirteen separate checklists covering a wider range of study types, including prevalence studies, case reports, case series, and qualitative evidence synthesis. They are slightly more detailed than CASP and include more extensive guidance notes.

---

## Conducting the Appraisal

Work through each included study using your chosen tool. For each study, complete the checklist and record:

- The tool used and checklist type (where multiple types apply)
- The response for each criterion (yes / no / can't tell)
- Any notes on specific methodological concerns
- The overall quality judgement (strong / moderate / weak, or equivalent)

A suggested format for recording appraisal results is a spreadsheet with one row per study and one column per checklist criterion, plus an overall rating column. This makes it easy to sort by quality rating and to identify patterns (for example, if most studies share a common weakness such as lack of reflexivity, this becomes a theme in your discussion).

### A Practical Tip

<p class="callout info">Read the methods section of each paper carefully before completing the checklist. Authors do not always report methods in detail in the abstract or even the results section; insufficient reporting is itself a quality concern, but it is worth distinguishing between a study that did not address a criterion and one that did but failed to report it.</p>

---

## Reporting Quality Appraisal in Your Thesis

Quality appraisal results must be reported transparently in your methods chapter and referenced in your discussion. Standard practice is to:

1. **Name the tool(s) used** and cite the source
2. **Present results in a summary table**, with one row per included study and columns for each criterion or an overall rating
3. **Describe the overall quality of the evidence base** in narrative: were most studies of moderate quality? Were there systematic weaknesses across studies (e.g., small sample sizes, single-country contexts)?
4. **Reference quality in your discussion**: when interpreting conflicting findings, note whether higher-quality studies favor one conclusion over another

Avoid the common error of completing a quality appraisal table and then never mentioning it again. The appraisal should inform how confidently you present your conclusions.

---

## Common Mistakes to Avoid

<div class="callout warning" id="bkmrk-appraising-after-syn">- **Appraising after synthesis.** Quality appraisal must precede synthesis; if you read deeply before appraising, your judgements will be influenced by whether you liked the findings.
- **Applying the wrong checklist.** Using a qualitative checklist on a survey study, or vice versa, produces meaningless results. Identify each study's methodology before selecting the checklist.
- **Rating "can't tell" on everything.** If most responses are "can't tell," the issue is usually that you are not reading the methods section carefully enough, or the reporting is genuinely poor (which is itself a quality concern worth noting).
- **Treating quality appraisal as a hurdle to clear.** Its purpose is to characterise the evidence base, not to disqualify papers. A study with weaknesses can still contribute useful evidence if its limitations are acknowledged in the synthesis.
- **Forgetting to cite the appraisal tool.** The tool is a published instrument and must be referenced in your methods chapter.

</div>

# Extract Data

## Overview

Data extraction is the process of systematically pulling the information you need from each included study and recording it in a standardised form. It bridges the gap between your screened, appraised set of studies and the synthesis you will conduct later. Consistent, thorough extraction is what makes synthesis possible: if you extract different information from different papers, you cannot meaningfully compare or combine them.

<p class="callout warning">Extraction is not the same as reading for interest. You are not summarizing papers freely; you are completing a pre-designed form that captures the same fields from every study in the same way.</p>

---

## Design Your Extraction Form

Your extraction form should have been designed as part of your [protocol](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/writing-a-protocol). Review it now against your actual included studies and refine if necessary. Any changes at this stage count as a protocol amendment and should be documented.

### Core Fields

Every extraction form for a business or management SLR should include the following fields as a minimum:

<table id="bkmrk-field-what-to-record"><thead><tr><th>Field</th><th>What to record</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>**Study ID**</td><td>A unique reference number you assign (e.g., S01, S02) for use in tables and in-text citation during synthesis</td></tr><tr><td>**Author(s)**</td><td>Last name and initials of all authors</td></tr><tr><td>**Year**</td><td>Year of publication</td></tr><tr><td>**Title**</td><td>Full title of the article</td></tr><tr><td>**Journal/Source**</td><td>Journal name, conference, or report series</td></tr><tr><td>**Country/Region**</td><td>Country where the study was conducted or the data originate</td></tr><tr><td>**Study design/method**</td><td>Qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods; specify further (e.g., semi-structured interviews, survey, case study)</td></tr><tr><td>**Sample**</td><td>Size, type, and characteristics of the sample or dataset</td></tr><tr><td>**Data collection period**</td><td>When data were collected (may differ from publication year)</td></tr><tr><td>**Key findings**</td><td>A concise, accurate summary of findings relevant to your research question; use the authors' own language where possible</td></tr><tr><td>**Theoretical framework**</td><td>Any theory the study draws on (relevant for deductive synthesis)</td></tr><tr><td>**Limitations noted by authors**</td><td>As reported in the paper</td></tr><tr><td>**Quality appraisal rating**</td><td>Transfer the overall rating from earlier appraisal</td></tr><tr><td>**Notes**</td><td>Any observations relevant to synthesis (e.g., contradicts S04; uses unusual operationalisation)</td></tr></tbody></table>

### Additional Fields by Research Type

Depending on your topic, you may also need:

- **Quantitative studies:** key statistical outcomes (effect sizes, correlation coefficients, significance levels), measurement instruments used
- **Qualitative studies:** epistemological position (interpretivist, constructivist), method of analysis (thematic analysis, grounded theory, discourse analysis)
- **Conceptual or review papers:** type of contribution (framework, typology, critique), scope of literature reviewed

---

## Format of the Extraction Form

A spreadsheet (Excel or LibreOffice Calc) with one row per study and one column per field is the standard format and works well for most thesis-level reviews.

Advantages:

- Easy to sort and filter by country, method, year, or quality rating
- Column widths can accommodate varying amounts of text
- Can be shared with a supervisor for review
- Exports cleanly to a summary table for the thesis appendix

A blank version of the extraction form should be included as an appendix in your final thesis.

---

## Conducting the Extraction

Work through each included study in order of your Study ID. For each paper:

1. Read the full text carefully, focusing on the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections
2. Complete every field in the extraction form; leave no field blank (use "not reported" where the paper does not provide the information rather than leaving the cell empty)
3. Record findings in your own words, except for key definitions or theoretical statements where the authors' precise language matters; note any direct quotations with page numbers
4. Note any information that is ambiguous, inconsistent between sections of the paper, or that raises a question for synthesis

### Handling Ambiguity

You will encounter papers where the methodology is not clearly described, findings are presented inconsistently, or the research question shifts between the introduction and the discussion. Record what is actually in the paper, note the ambiguity explicitly, and do not interpret charitably to fill gaps. Gaps in reporting are themselves evidence of methodological weakness and belong in your quality appraisal record.

---

## Pilot Extraction

Before extracting all included studies, conduct a pilot on three to five papers. It tests whether your form captures the information you actually need for synthesis

After the pilot, review the form: are any fields consistently empty or impossible to complete? Are any fields producing inconsistent entries between reviewers? Revise the form before proceeding, and document any changes as a protocol amendment.

---

## Maintaining an Audit Trail

Keep a running note of any decisions you make during extraction that go beyond straightforward form completion. Examples:

- "S07 reports two separate studies in one paper; extracted as two separate rows"
- "S12 uses 'SME' to mean firms with under 500 employees, which differs from the EU definition; noted in synthesis"
- "S19 abstract reports significant results but body of paper presents a non-significant finding; used body of paper"

These notes protect you if your decisions are questioned during examination, and they support transparency if your review is ever published.

---

## Preparing for Synthesis

Before moving to next step, review your completed extraction form as a whole:

- Are there patterns in the countries, methods, or theoretical frameworks of included studies?
- Are there clusters of studies addressing the same sub-question or using the same construct?
- Are there contradictions between studies that will need to be addressed in synthesis?
- Are there gaps in the evidence base that were not apparent before extraction?

A brief written memo at this stage, even half a page of notes, is a valuable precursor to synthesis. It helps you enter the next step with a sense of the landscape of the evidence rather than facing a blank page.

---

## Common Mistakes to Avoid

<div class="callout warning" id="bkmrk-extracting-selective">- **Extracting selectively.** Record all findings relevant to your research question, including those that contradict your expectations. Selective extraction is a form of bias.
- **Leaving fields blank.** An empty field is ambiguous: it may mean the information was not reported, or it may mean you forgot to check. Use "not reported" explicitly.
- **Conflating extraction with synthesis.** The extraction form captures what each study says; synthesis is where you interpret and compare across studies. Do not begin drawing conclusions in the extraction form.
- **Using only the abstract.** Abstracts routinely omit, simplify, or misrepresent the findings of the full paper. Always extract from the full text.
- **Not versioning the form.** If you revise the extraction form after beginning extraction, save both versions and note when the change was made. Applying revised criteria retrospectively without documentation introduces inconsistency.

</div>

# Synthesize and Report

## Overview

Synthesis is where the work of the review becomes an argument. Having [identified](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/conducting-your-search), [screened](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/screening-the-results "Screening the Results"), [appraised](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/appraise-study-quality "Appraise Study Quality"), and [extracted data](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/extract-data "Extract Data") from your included studies, you now interpret what they collectively say in response to your research question. Reporting then translates that interpretation into a structured written account that meets the standards of academic transparency required for a thesis.

These two activities, synthesis and reporting, are treated together here because they are iterative: the structure of your synthesis shapes the structure of your report, and drafting the report often reveals gaps in the synthesis that require you to return to your notes.

---

## Choose Your Synthesis Approach

Your synthesis method was specified in your [protocol](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/writing-a-protocol "Writing a Protocol"). The two principal options for business and management SLRs are narrative synthesis and meta-analysis. A third option, thematic synthesis, is increasingly common and sits between the two.

### Narrative Synthesis

Narrative synthesis organises findings from included studies into themes or categories and describes patterns, relationships, contradictions, and gaps in discursive prose. It is appropriate when:

- Included studies use different methodologies that cannot be statistically combined
- The evidence base is heterogeneous in population, context, or outcome measures
- Your research question asks "what," "how," or "why" rather than "how much"

This is the most common synthesis approach in business and management research and is suitable for the majority of thesis-level SLRs.

### Thematic Synthesis

Thematic synthesis, developed by [Thomas and Harden (2008)](https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45), applies a more structured coding procedure to the findings of included studies before organising them into themes. It is particularly well-suited to reviews of qualitative studies and connects directly to the deductive, inductive, and combined coding approaches described in the [Bandara et al. (2015)](https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03708) framework. The process involves three stages:

1. **Line-by-line coding** of the findings and conclusions sections of each included study
2. **Developing descriptive themes** by grouping related codes
3. **Generating analytical themes** that go beyond description to interpret what the evidence means in relation to your research question

### Meta-Analysis

Meta-analysis pools numerical results from multiple quantitative studies using statistical methods to produce an overall effect size estimate. It is only appropriate when:

- Included studies are sufficiently homogeneous in design, population, and outcome measure to be meaningfully combined
- A sufficient number of studies report compatible quantitative outcomes
- You have the statistical training to conduct and report the analysis correctly

Meta-analysis is rarely appropriate at thesis level in business and management research; if your supervisor has suggested it, seek guidance early on statistical software ([R](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(programming_language)), [Stata](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stata), or [JASP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASP)) and reporting requirements.

---

## Conducting Narrative or Thematic Synthesis

The following steps apply to both narrative and thematic synthesis.

### Step 1: Familiarize Yourself with the Evidence Base

Before coding, read all your extraction notes as a whole. Review the memo you wrote at the end of [Extract Data](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/extract-data "Extract Data"). Note the overall shape of the evidence: how many studies, what methods, what contexts, what time period.

### Step 2: Develop a Coding Framework

Decide whether you will code deductively, inductively, or using a combined approach.

#### Deductive, Inductive, and Combined Coding

[![Phase 2. Organization and preparation for analysis.png](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/uploads/images/gallery/2026-02/scaled-1680-/phase-2-organization-and-preparation-for-analysis.png)](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/uploads/images/gallery/2026-02/phase-2-organization-and-preparation-for-analysis.png)   
<sub> "Phase 2 of the Bandara et al. SLR process: organisation and preparation for analysis, including coding approach selection" by Hasan Koç is licensed under [CC BY-NC-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), based on [Bandara et al., 2015](https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03708).</sub>

The [Bandara et al. (2015)](https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03708) framework, widely used in information systems and management SLRs, defines three approaches to coding:

**Deductive coding:** You bring a pre-existing theoretical framework or model to the data and apply its categories to the findings of included studies. This approach is appropriate when your research question asks how a specific theory has been applied across contexts, or when you are testing whether empirical evidence supports a theoretical proposition.

**Inductive coding:** Codes emerge from the data without a predetermined structure. You read findings across studies and assign descriptive labels that capture what is being said, allowing themes to develop organically. This approach is appropriate for exploratory research questions where the conceptual landscape is not yet well defined.

**Combined approach:** Begin with a small set of deductive codes derived from your research question or theoretical framework, then allow additional codes to emerge inductively as you encounter concepts not anticipated by the initial framework. This is the most flexible approach and is common in thesis-level SLRs where the scope is narrower than a full mapping review but broader than a theory-testing study.

For most business thesis SLRs, a combined approach is practical and defensible. Document your starting framework explicitly in your protocol and note any inductively derived codes as you develop them.

### Step 3: Code the Findings

Work through your extraction form, reading the key findings field for each study and assigning one or more codes. Use a simple coding log: a spreadsheet or table with Study ID, finding, and code assigned. Keep codes concise (two to five words) and descriptive at this stage.

### Step 4: Develop Themes

Group related codes into broader themes. A theme should:

- Capture a meaningful pattern across multiple studies
- Be distinct from other themes (minimal overlap)
- Be grounded in the evidence (traceable back to specific studies)
- Be relevant to your research question

Aim for three to six themes for a typical thesis-level review. Fewer than three suggests over-aggregation; more than six suggests insufficient grouping.

### Step 5: Interpret and Analyse

For each theme, write an analytical account that:

- Describes what the studies within the theme collectively show
- Notes the strength and consistency of the evidence (referencing quality appraisal ratings from [Appraise Study Quality](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/appraise-study-quality "Appraise Study Quality"))
- Identifies contradictions between studies and offers an explanation if possible
- Notes where evidence is absent or weak

<p class="callout warning">This is the intellectual contribution of your review. Do not simply list what each study found; explain what the body of evidence means.</p>

---

## Reporting Your Review

Your written report should follow the [PRISMA 2020 reporting guidelines](https://www.prisma-statement.org/), which specify what information must be included and where. The standard structure for an SLR thesis chapter or standalone review paper maps onto the following sections.

### Introduction

- Background and rationale for the review
- Research question, stated explicitly using your chosen framework (PICO, SPIDER, or PCC)
- Brief note on what the review contributes (addressing a gap, updating an earlier review, etc.)

### Methods

The methods section must be detailed enough for the review to be replicated. Include:

- Protocol reference (PROSPERO registration number or statement that no registration was conducted and why)
- Eligibility criteria, stated in full
- All databases searched, with dates and full search strings
- Screening process: phases, tools used, number of screeners, inter-rater reliability statistic if applicable
- Quality appraisal tool(s) used, with citations
- Data extraction approach, with reference to the form (included as an appendix)
- Synthesis method, with justification

### Results

Present results in three parts:

1. **PRISMA flow diagram:** a visual account of records identified, screened, excluded at each phase, and finally included. The pre-formatted PRISMA 2020 Word template is available [here](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/attachments/4).
2. **Characteristics of included studies:** a summary table (one row per study) covering author, year, country, method, sample, and quality rating. This table belongs in the results section, not the appendix.
3. **Synthesis findings:** your thematic or narrative synthesis, organised by theme, with in-text citations to included studies using your Study ID codes (e.g., S01, S07, S12).

### Discussion

- Interpret your findings in relation to your research question
- Compare your findings with those of related reviews or foundational theoretical frameworks
- Discuss the quality of the evidence base honestly
- Identify gaps in the literature and propose directions for future research
- State the limitations of your own review (search coverage, solo screening, language restrictions, etc.)

### Conclusion

A brief section (one to two paragraphs) stating the main answer to your research question and its implications for research or practice. Do not introduce new evidence here.

---

## The PRISMA Flow Diagram

The PRISMA 2020 flow diagram is a mandatory element of any SLR report. It visually documents the flow of records through the review process and allows readers to evaluate the thoroughness of your search and the basis for your inclusions.

The four stages represented in the diagram are:

1. **Identification:** total records retrieved from each database, plus any records from supplementary sources (grey literature, snowballing, hand-searching)
2. **Screening:** records after deduplication; records excluded at title/abstract screening with reason counts
3. **Eligibility:** full texts assessed; full texts excluded with reason counts; full texts not retrievable
4. **Included:** final number of studies included in the review

A pre-formatted Word version of the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram is available [here](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/attachments/4). Complete the numbers from your search logbook and screening tool records; do not estimate.

---

## Presenting Included Studies

### In-Text Citation Convention

During synthesis, refer to included studies by their Study ID (e.g., S01) rather than by author and year, to distinguish them visually from other literature cited in the discussion. Provide a complete reference list of included studies as a separate appendix, clearly labelled "Included Studies," so that examiners can locate them independently of your general reference list.

### The Characteristics Table

The summary table of included study characteristics is one of the most-read elements of an SLR report. Present it clearly and completely. At minimum, include: Study ID, author(s), year, country, methodology, sample, and your quality rating. If space allows, add a brief "key finding" column (one sentence per study).

---

## Common Mistakes to Avoid

<div class="callout warning" id="bkmrk-synthesising-by-summ">- **Synthesizing by summary.** Listing what each study found, one by one, is not synthesis. Synthesis requires you to compare across studies, identify patterns, and draw analytical conclusions.
- **Ignoring contradictory evidence.** If two studies reach opposing conclusions, engage with both and attempt an explanation. Omitting contradictions is a form of bias.
- **Detaching quality appraisal from synthesis.** The confidence you express in your conclusions should reflect the quality of the underlying evidence. A finding supported only by weak studies should be qualified accordingly.
- **Incomplete PRISMA numbers.** Every number in the flow diagram must be traceable to your logbook. Inconsistencies between the diagram and the methods text undermine the credibility of the review.
- **Conflating limitations of included studies with limitations of your review.** The limitations section of your discussion should address both, but separately: weaknesses in the evidence base are distinct from weaknesses in your review process.

</div>

# Evaluating Your Own SLR Process

<p class="callout info">This section is distinct from [Appraise Study Quality](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/appraise-study-quality), which assesses the rigor of the *primary studies* you have included. This section asks a different question: how rigorously did *you* conduct the review itself?</p>

## Overview

Quality appraisal tools such as [CASP, MMAT, and JBI](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/link/92#bkmrk-selecting-an-apprais) look outward: they help you evaluate the studies in your dataset. The checklist and scoring rubric on this page look *inward*: they help you evaluate your own review process against recognized best practices.

The items below are adapted from [Petersen, Vakkalanka, and Kuzniarz (2015)](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2015.03.007), who derived them from a systematic mapping study of how SLRs and systematic mapping studies are conducted in practice. Use this rubric in two ways:

- **[During planning](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/writing-a-protocol "Writing a Protocol"):** as a checklist of actions to build into your protocol.
- **Before submission:** as a retrospective audit to identify gaps in your process and to disclose them transparently in your methods chapter.

<p class="callout warning">This rubric was developed in the context of software engineering research. The core dimensions; motivating the review, search strategy, search evaluation, extraction/classification, and validity; apply equally to business and management SLRs. Items that refer to software-engineering-specific classification schemes may be skipped if they are not relevant to your discipline.</p>

---

## Part 1: Activities Checklist

The table below lists the 26 actions identified by Petersen et al. (2015) as relevant to a rigorous systematic review or mapping study. Work through each row and mark whether the action was taken (✓), partially taken (~), or not taken (✗). This produces a ratio score: count your ✓ marks and divide by 26 (or by the number of applicable items).

<table id="bkmrk-phase-action-taken%3F-"><thead><tr><th>Phase</th><th>Action</th><th>Taken?</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>**Motivate the review**</td><td>Motivate the need and relevance of the review</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>Define objectives and research questions</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>Consult with the target audience (e.g., supervisor, domain expert) to refine questions</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>**Search strategy**</td><td>Conduct a database search</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>Apply snowball sampling (backward and/or forward)</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>Conduct a manual search of key journals or conference proceedings</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>**Develop the search**</td><td>Use a structured framework (PICO, SPIDER, or PCC) to derive keywords</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>Consult a librarian or domain expert during search design</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>Iteratively refine the search string to improve coverage</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>Derive additional keywords from known relevant papers</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>Use thesauri, encyclopedias, or controlled vocabularies (e.g., MeSH, EBSCO subject headings)</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>**Evaluate the search**</td><td>Test the search against a set of known-relevant papers</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>Have an expert evaluate the search results</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>Check the web pages or profiles of key authors in the field</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>Conduct a test–retest to check consistency</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>**Inclusion and exclusion**</td><td>Define objective, pre-specified criteria for inclusion and exclusion</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>Involve a second reviewer; resolve disagreements systematically</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>Define and apply explicit decision rules for borderline cases</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>**Data extraction**</td><td>Define objective criteria for the extraction process</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>Blind or obscure information that could bias extraction</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>Involve a second reviewer; resolve disagreements in extraction</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>Conduct test–retest of extraction on a subset</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>**Classification**</td><td>Classify studies by research type (e.g., empirical, conceptual, review)</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>Classify studies by research method (e.g., case study, survey, experiment)</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>Classify studies by venue type (e.g., journal, conference, practitioner publication)</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>**Validity**</td><td>Discuss validity threats and limitations of the review process</td><td> </td></tr></tbody></table>

---

## Part 2: Scoring Rubrics

After completing the checklist, use the rubrics below to assign a score to each of the five key dimensions. Record these scores in your methods chapter alongside a brief narrative.

### Rubric 1: Motivating the Review

<table id="bkmrk-score-label-descript"><thead><tr><th>Score</th><th>Label</th><th>Description</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0</td><td>Not described</td><td>The review is not motivated and no objectives are stated</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Partial</td><td>Motivations and research questions are provided</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Full</td><td>Motivations and questions are provided **and** have been developed in dialogue with the target audience (supervisor, practitioners, or domain experts)</td></tr></tbody></table>

### Rubric 2: Search Strategy

<table id="bkmrk-score-label-descript-1"><thead><tr><th>Score</th><th>Label</th><th>Description</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0</td><td>Not described</td><td>Only one type of search was conducted</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Minimal</td><td>Two search strategies were used</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Full</td><td>All three strategies were used: database search, snowball sampling, and manual search</td></tr></tbody></table>

### Rubric 3: Evaluating the Search

<table id="bkmrk-score-label-descript-2"><thead><tr><th>Score</th><th>Label</th><th>Description</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0</td><td>Not described</td><td>No actions were taken to improve the reliability of the search or inclusion/exclusion process</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Minimal</td><td>At least one action was taken to improve *either* the reliability of the search *or* the inclusion/exclusion process</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Partial</td><td>At least one action was taken to improve *both* the search and the inclusion/exclusion process</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Full</td><td>All identified actions were taken</td></tr></tbody></table>

### Rubric 4: Extraction and Classification

<table id="bkmrk-score-label-descript-3"><thead><tr><th>Score</th><th>Label</th><th>Description</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0</td><td>Not described</td><td>No actions were taken to improve extraction reliability or enable comparability between studies</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Minimal</td><td>At least one action was taken to increase extraction reliability</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Partial</td><td>At least one action to increase extraction reliability **and** studies were classified by research type and method</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Full</td><td>All identified actions were taken</td></tr></tbody></table>

### Rubric 5: Study Validity

<table id="bkmrk-score-label-descript-4"><thead><tr><th>Score</th><th>Label</th><th>Description</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0</td><td>Not described</td><td>No threats or limitations are described</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Full</td><td>Threats and limitations of the review process are described</td></tr></tbody></table>

---

## Interpreting Your Scores

No minimum threshold is formally established in the literature for general SLRs; the rubric is a diagnostic tool, not a pass/fail gate. Use the results as follows:

- **In your methods chapter:** Report your scores and briefly explain any dimension rated 0 or 1. A low score on a dimension is not automatically a fatal flaw, but it must be acknowledged as a limitation.
- **In your discussion:** Dimensions scored 0 (especially search strategy and validity) should be discussed explicitly when qualifying the strength of your conclusions.
- **As a planning aid:** If you are still in the protocol stage, any action not yet checked is a concrete item to build into your plan before searching begins.

<p class="callout info">For more detail on designing and evaluating your search strategy, see the [Search Quality Self-Assessment Checklist ](https://libguides.whitecliffe.de/books/research-skills/page/self-assessment-checklist-for-your-slr-search "Self-Assessment Checklist for Your SLR Search")(adapted from vom Brocke et al., 2015), which provides granular guidance on the search phase specifically.</p>