Guest editorial

Richard Wilding, Beverly Wagner
2019 Supply chain management  
Systematic review and the need for evidence Systematic reviews of management literature have only become common over the past 15 years, and it can be argued that the purpose of such reviews is to aid evidence-based decision-making. Roots of the systematic review approach are to be found in medical and health-care research where appraising and synthesising evidence presented in multiple studies has been critical in limiting bias. The recognition by Smith in the early 1990s in his publication in
more » ... he British Medical Journal (Smith, 1991) that 15 per cent of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence provided an interesting insight into the extent of the problem within medicine and the need for evidence-based practice. This and similar insights provided the impetus for systematic review to be used more efficiently within medical research. When presenting such works, evidence is critical and to generate it, a robust auditable methodology needs to be applied. If done well, a researcher repeating the study should come to the same conclusions as the original researcher. This contrasts with many narrative reviews that tell a story from literature. Such weaker reviews take elements from literature that support the author's thesis and ignore any which are not seen to fit. This can result in biased conclusions, not repeatable by other researchers and un-auditable and subjective claims. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal has pioneered the promotion and publishing of systematic reviews in the area of logistics, procurement and supply chain management (SCM). Our first special issue, published in 2012, focussed on "Building Theory in Supply Chain Management" through systematic reviews of the literature (Volume 17, Numbers 4 and 5 [2012]). The response from this call was overwhelming and resulted in a Parts 1 and 2 having to be published to capture excellent insights from authors. Sister journals have recognised the important contribution that systematic reviews can make and have undertaken similar special issues. For example, the
doi:10.1108/scm-01-2019-494 fatcat:dmqhxeh77vd5rbrnq4hcnnyuga