We categorized and content-analyzed 168 methodological literature reviews published in 42 management and applied psychology journals. First, our categorization uncovered that the majority of published reviews (i.e., 85.10%) belong in three categories (i.e., critical, narrative, and descriptive reviews), which points to opportunities and promising directions for additional types of methodological literature reviews in the future (e.g., meta-analytic and umbrella reviews). Second, our content analysis uncovered implicit features of published methodological literature reviews. Based on the results of our content analysis, we created a checklist of actionable recommendations regarding 10 components to include to enhance a methodological literature review’s thoroughness, clarity, and ultimately, usefulness. Third, we describe choices and judgment calls in published reviews and provide detailed explications of exemplars that illustrate how those choices and judgment calls can be made explicit. Overall, our article offers recommendations that are useful for three methodological literature review stakeholder groups: producers (i.e., potential authors), evaluators (i.e., journal editors and reviewers), and users (i.e., substantive researchers interested in learning about a particular methodological issue and individuals tasked with training the next generation of scholars).

我们对在42种管理和应用心理学期刊上发表的168种方法学文献评论进行了分类和内容分析。首先，我们的分类发现，大多数已发表的评论（即85.10％）属于三个类别（即批评性，叙述性和描述性评论），这为将来进行其他类型的方法学文献评论指出了机遇和有希望的方向（例如，荟萃分析和全面审查）。其次，我们的内容分析发现了已出版的方法论文献评论的隐含特征。根据我们内容分析的结果，我们创建了涉及10个组成部分的可行建议清单，以包括增强方法学文献综述的彻底性，清晰度和最终实用性。第三，我们在已发表的评论中描述选择和判断的要求，并提供示例的详细说明，以说明如何明确选择和判断的要求。总体而言，我们的文章提供了对三个方法论文献回顾利益相关者组有用的建议：生产者（即潜在作者），评估者（即期刊编辑和审稿人）和用户（即对研究特定方法论问题感兴趣的实质性研究者）和负责培训下一代学者的个人）。