Too Many Review Articles? Exploring the Potential of Living Reviews in Management and Organization Studies

by Daniel Muzio

Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) have been one of the success stories of the last few decades. Twenty years ago, SLRs in management or business studies were still relatively rare, with a couple of dozen being published each year. Almost 1,500 were published in 2024 alone. In particular, growth has become exponential since 2017, with the number of reviews increasing by 600%. At the same time, reviews have become more diverse in terms of aims and objectives, more methodologically rigorous, and their authorship has also become broader and more representative of the global academic community. Yet, against this positive backdrop, we should ask: how many reviews is too many? Have we reached ‘peak’ SLR? If so, as this form of academic output reaches maturity, how should we move forward?

These questions are particularly urgent in a context where we have an over-supply of peer-reviewed research, where peer review systems are increasingly under strain, and where—leaving aside concerns over quality and ethics—AI promises to boost productivity and expand the supply of academic articles even further. The latter point is particularly pertinent to SLRs, as this format is often viewed as AI-ready—i.e. particularly suitable for the use of AI—as indicated by the growing number of step-by-step guidelines on this topic. The danger here is a flood of reviews that no one particularly wants or needs. This would not only constitute a misallocation of individual effort but might also risk undermining the perception of SLRs as an entire genre of research.

Perhaps the solution lies within the genre itself—particularly in a form of review that has yet to gain significant traction in management studies: the living review. Originating from medicine, living reviews are a type of systematic literature review that is continuously updated as new evidence becomes available, following a predefined protocol for evidence surveillance, synthesis, and revision. Whilst new topics occasionally emerge, most disciplines develop by broadening and deepening existing topics. Even in management studies, the great majority of existing topics have now already been reviewed multiple times. Whilst different reviews can show different insights, there is also a danger of duplication, fragmentation, and inconsistency—not to mention the fact that static reviews are characterized by in-built obsolescence. Living reviews are designed to address these issues and account for the evolution of fields over time.

Furthermore, living reviews could be curated by large, institutionalized consortia of academics—either via learned societies or through independent collaborations—rather than by small and transient author teams. This would lend them further institutional legitimacy whilst also guaranteeing comprehensiveness and the presence of multiple voices and points of view. This would dampen duplication and fragmentation, as these living reviews would work as quasi-official records of a particular topic, while authors could concentrate on more generative forms of writing (including meta-analyses or integrative reviews), and of course on covering newly emergent topics.

Of course, introducing living reviews into management and business studies would not be without challenges. After all, they have so far been limited to fields like medicine, which operate under very different ontological and epistemological assumptions—assumptions grounded in consensus, cumulative knowledge, and standardized methodologies. In contrast, knowledge in management and business studies is often more pluralistic, fragmented, and contested. This raises important questions about where, and under what conditions, living reviews might be suitable within our field. Might they be more easily adopted in areas such as organizational behavior, operations research, or parts of strategy, where empirical accumulation and methodological consensus are more established? Would they be less appropriate in more interpretive, critical, or heterodox traditions? How could they be adapted to work better in such fields? What kinds of reviews (systematic, meta-analysis, integrative, etc) are actually suited to becoming ‘living’? Furthermore, additional questions arise around governance issues: Who would take responsibility for maintaining and updating such reviews? How can we make sure that author teams reflect a plurality of voices and traditions? How would authorship, credit, and peer review be managed over time? What institutional structures would be needed to support them, and would these reinforce or resist dominant paradigms within the field?

Adopting living reviews in our field is not without challenges, but doing so may make a positive contribution and help to alleviate some of the current problems highlighter above. Rather than a conclusion, this blog is an invitation to further reflect on what role living reviews could play in our field and how we may best realize their potential.