Literature Search and Critical Review

Introduction and context

A dissertation is not simply a report of information already available. It is an argument that addresses a research problem by positioning new analysis within an existing body of knowledge. The literature review provides the intellectual foundation for that argument. In accounting and finance, a rigorous review may examine evidence on audit quality, financial reporting, corporate governance, capital structure, sustainability reporting, taxation, financial technology, investment behaviour, or another defined topic.

A high-quality review does three things. First, it establishes what is known and how confidently it is known. Second, it identifies disagreement, limitations and under-researched areas. Third, it uses that evaluation to justify the research question, conceptual framework, propositions or hypotheses. A literature review is therefore both a scholarly product and a research process.

The central distinction is between description and critical synthesis. Description reports what individual authors found. Critical synthesis compares studies, evaluates their methods and assumptions, explains why results differ, and develops a reasoned conclusion about the state of knowledge. The objective is not to cite the largest possible number of sources, but to select and integrate the most relevant and credible evidence.

Learning objectives

By the end of this chapter, you should be able to:

1. Define the purpose and scope of a literature search and review.
2. Convert a broad accounting or finance interest into searchable concepts and inclusion criteria.
3. Use scholarly databases and Boolean search strategies systematically.
4. Assess the authority, relevance, methodological quality and limitations of sources.
5. Organise evidence using a search record, screening process and evidence matrix.
6. Synthesise findings thematically, theoretically and methodologically rather than merely summarising them.
7. Identify defensible research gaps and distinguish them from unsupported claims of novelty.
8. Develop conceptual relationships, propositions or testable hypotheses from reviewed evidence.
9. Cite and manage sources ethically and accurately.

1. What constitutes academic literature?

Academic literature includes peer-reviewed journal articles, scholarly books, research monographs, conference papers, theses and credible institutional publications. These sources do not have equal authority or purpose.

A peer-reviewed empirical article usually reports a research question, theoretical rationale, method, findings and limitations. A review article synthesises prior studies and may be particularly useful for mapping a field, although it should not automatically replace examination of important primary studies. A professional or regulatory report may provide current industry evidence, standards or policy information, but it may use methods and quality controls different from those of academic research. A working paper can contain timely findings but may not yet have undergone formal peer review.

The phrase “the literature” should therefore be treated cautiously. It is not a single, unified body of truth. It is a collection of studies produced in different settings, using different definitions, samples, measures, theories and standards of evidence. A review must make those differences visible.

Scholarly quality and relevance

The quality of a source is multidimensional. A highly cited paper may be influential but methodologically limited; a recent paper may be relevant but not yet widely cited. Assess sources using at least the following dimensions:

Citation counts and journal rankings may assist discovery, but they are not substitutes for reading and evaluation. They can favour older publications, particular disciplines and English-language research, while underrepresenting useful newer or regional work.

2. From research interest to review question

A search is effective only when its purpose is defined. “I want to study sustainability” is an interest, not a review question. A more useful formulation identifies a population, phenomenon, relationship and context. For example:

How does mandatory climate-related disclosure affect the information environment and financing decisions of listed firms?

This question contains several searchable concepts: mandatory disclosure, climate-related disclosure, information environment, financing decisions and listed firms. It also indicates that the review may need accounting, finance, regulation and corporate governance literature.

A useful scoping sequence is:

1. Identify the phenomenon. What is being studied: audit committee expertise, earnings management, mobile banking adoption or investment risk?
2. Specify the unit of analysis. Is the unit a firm, investor, auditor, report, transaction, country or household?
3. Define the outcome. What is expected to change or be explained?
4. Identify possible explanatory concepts. What factors, mechanisms or conditions may matter?
5. Set boundaries. Consider period, geography, sector, firm size, accounting regime and study design.
6. Formulate the review purpose. Is the aim mapping, explaining, comparing, evaluating effects or identifying evidence gaps?

A review question may be broad during an exploratory search and become narrower after initial reading. This is not a failure. It is an iterative process, provided changes are recorded and justified.

Review approaches

Different questions require different review approaches.

• A narrative or traditional review interprets a body of literature through a coherent argument. It is flexible and suitable for theory development, but can be vulnerable to selective citation.
• A systematic review uses explicit search, selection, appraisal and synthesis procedures to reduce avoidable bias. It is especially useful when the question and evidence base are sufficiently focused.
• A scoping review maps the range, concepts and types of evidence in an emerging or heterogeneous field. It may identify research gaps without estimating one overall effect.
• A systematic quantitative review or meta-analysis combines comparable numerical findings. It requires compatible constructs and careful attention to heterogeneity; it is not appropriate merely because studies report numbers.
• An integrative review combines theoretical and empirical literature, often to build a conceptual framework.

At bachelor level, a dissertation may use a structured narrative review or a small systematic search. The essential requirement is methodological transparency: readers should understand how sources were found, selected and interpreted.

3. Designing a systematic search strategy

Databases and discovery tools

Search across databases relevant to the discipline rather than relying on a general internet search engine. Accounting and finance students may use databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, Business Source Complete, ProQuest, ScienceDirect, JSTOR, EconLit, SSRN and institutional library discovery systems, depending on institutional access. Google Scholar can help identify terminology and citation chains, but its coverage and ranking are less transparent, so important sources should be verified through authoritative records.

A database search should be reproducible. Record the database name, platform, date searched, fields searched, exact search string, filters, number of results and decisions made. Database interfaces change, so saving the search history or exporting the results is valuable.

Keywords, synonyms and controlled terms

Researchers rarely use identical terminology. For example, studies of earnings management may use “financial reporting manipulation,” “discretionary accruals,” “accounting irregularities” or “real activities manipulation.” Build a concept table before conducting the main search.

The asterisk is a truncation symbol in many databases, allowing variations such as company and companies, although rules differ by platform. Phrase searching with quotation marks can retrieve an exact expression, but excessive phrase restriction may omit relevant studies.

Boolean operators and search construction

Boolean operators combine concepts:

• OR broadens a concept by retrieving synonyms: audit quality OR auditor independence.
• AND narrows the search by requiring multiple concepts: audit quality AND earnings management.
• NOT excludes terms, but should be used cautiously because relevant records may be removed.
• Parentheses control the order of operations: (ESG OR sustainability OR climate) AND disclosure AND (cost of capital OR financing cost).

A well-constructed search separates concept groups with AND and synonyms within each group with OR. It should be broad enough for discovery but not so broad that screening becomes unmanageable. Begin with a pilot search, inspect relevant records and revise terminology. Do not silently change the search merely to obtain a preferred result.

Citation chaining

Keyword searching is complemented by citation chaining. Backward chaining examines the reference lists of relevant articles. Forward chaining identifies later publications that cite them. “Related article” functions can reveal terminology that the original search missed. Citation chaining is particularly helpful for locating seminal theories, methodological debates and influential critiques, but it can reproduce citation-network bias. It should supplement, not replace, a database search.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Predefine criteria that align with the review question. For example:

Criteria should be applied consistently, but not mechanically. A foundational theoretical article may be retained even if it falls outside the date range. Every exception should have a scholarly reason.

4. Screening, documentation and evidence management

Searching generates records, not automatically usable evidence. Screening normally proceeds in stages:

1. Export results and remove duplicates.
2. Screen titles and abstracts against the criteria.
3. Retrieve and assess full texts.
4. Record reasons for exclusion.
5. Extract information from included studies.
6. Update the search near submission if the topic is fast moving.

A flow diagram can communicate the process, but the underlying record is more important than visual presentation. The researcher should be able to explain how many records were identified, screened, excluded and included, and why.

An evidence matrix prevents reading from becoming disconnected note-taking. A useful matrix may contain:

Separate the author’s findings from your interpretation. Direct quotations should be rare and accompanied by page numbers. Paraphrasing requires genuine restatement and citation; changing a few words is not acceptable academic practice.

Reference-management software can store records, PDFs, tags and notes, and can generate citations. It does not determine whether a source is relevant or whether a citation supports a claim. Check automatically generated references against the original publication, especially author names, dates, titles, volume, issue, pages and digital object identifiers.

5. Critical appraisal of accounting and finance studies

Critical appraisal asks whether a study’s conclusions are warranted by its design and evidence. It is not an exercise in dismissing every limitation. All research has limitations; the question is whether they materially affect interpretation.

Theory and construct validity

A study should define its constructs clearly. For example, “audit quality” may be represented by auditor size, restatements, inspection findings, abnormal accruals or audit opinions. These are not interchangeable measures. Ask whether the measure captures the construct, whether alternative measures produce similar results and whether the measure is influenced by the outcome itself.

The theoretical mechanism should also be plausible. Agency theory may explain monitoring and information asymmetry; stakeholder theory may explain accountability to wider groups; legitimacy theory may explain disclosure as a response to social expectations; institutional theory may explain convergence caused by regulation, professional norms or imitation; signalling theory may explain voluntary disclosure intended to distinguish higher-quality firms. Theories are not labels to attach after the results. They should guide the expected relationship and interpretation.

Research design and identification

In quantitative studies, distinguish association from causation. A regression coefficient may indicate that two variables are related, but it does not by itself establish that one causes the other. Consider omitted variables, reverse causality, measurement error, sample selection and common trends. Panel data, fixed effects, natural experiments, instrumental variables or difference-in-differences designs may address some threats, but each has assumptions that must be examined.

In qualitative research, assess the suitability of interviews, documents, observation or case studies for the question. Examine sampling logic, access, reflexivity, coding transparency, triangulation and the relationship between evidence and interpretation. A small case can provide rich explanation without supporting statistical generalisation.

Statistical and interpretive issues

For empirical finance research, evaluate sample construction, missing data, outliers, variable definitions, model specification and robustness tests. Statistical significance is not the same as economic significance. A small estimated effect may be statistically precise but practically unimportant. Conversely, a meaningful effect may be estimated imprecisely in a small sample.

Check whether the analysis matches the data structure. Firm-year observations may involve repeated observations for the same firm, industry clustering or time dependence. Standard errors and model assumptions should reflect those features. Do not infer quality from the presence of sophisticated techniques; complexity can conceal weak measurement or an ill-defined question.

Context and transferability

Evidence from large United States listed firms may not transfer directly to private firms in a developing economy. Institutional environments differ in enforcement, ownership concentration, investor protection, audit markets, taxation, financial access and reporting requirements. A critical review explains how context may moderate a relationship rather than treating context as a minor descriptive detail.

6. Synthesising evidence rather than listing studies

A literature review becomes analytical when studies are organised around an argument. Four complementary structures are useful.

Thematic synthesis groups evidence by substantive themes, such as governance mechanisms, disclosure incentives and market outcomes.

Theoretical synthesis compares what different theories predict, what mechanisms they emphasise and where they conflict.

Methodological synthesis compares samples, measures, designs and analytical strategies, showing whether inconsistent results may arise from method rather than from the underlying phenomenon.

Chronological synthesis shows how a debate developed, but chronology alone often produces a catalogue. Use it when changes in regulation, technology or theory are central to the question.

A paragraph in a critical review often follows this pattern:

1. State an analytical claim.
2. Present converging evidence.
3. Contrast opposing or qualifying evidence.
4. Explain methodological or contextual reasons for the difference.
5. Connect the evaluation to the dissertation question.

For example, rather than writing that three studies found disclosure reduces the cost of capital and two did not, explain whether the studies used different disclosure measures, regulatory periods, investor samples or estimation strategies. The synthesis should lead to a qualified conclusion such as: evidence is broadly consistent with an information-asymmetry mechanism, but the effect appears conditional on disclosure credibility and enforcement.

Evidence strength and conflicting findings

Conflicting findings are often valuable. They may indicate:

• different operational definitions of the same construct;
• differences in population, country or period;
• nonlinear or conditional relationships;
• publication bias or selective reporting;
• inadequate statistical power;
• genuinely competing mechanisms.

Do not resolve disagreement by counting studies. Five weak studies do not necessarily outweigh one well-designed study. Instead, compare design quality, relevance, precision and plausibility. Where evidence remains uncertain, state that uncertainty directly.

7. From literature gaps to research questions and hypotheses

A research gap is not simply a topic that has never been studied. It may be a theoretical, empirical, methodological, contextual or practical gap.

• A theoretical gap exists when existing theories do not adequately explain an observed issue or make competing predictions.
• An empirical gap exists when evidence is sparse, inconsistent or incomplete.
• A methodological gap arises when dominant methods cannot answer an important aspect of the question.
• A contextual gap concerns an underexamined country, market, sector, institution or period.
• A practical or policy gap concerns uncertainty relevant to professional or regulatory decisions.

A credible gap statement identifies what has been done, what remains uncertain, why the uncertainty matters and how the proposed study will address it. Avoid claims such as “no research exists” unless the search is exceptionally comprehensive. “Few studies located in the defined databases and period examined…” is more defensible.

Conceptual frameworks

A conceptual framework represents expected relationships among constructs and the mechanisms connecting them. It may include independent variables, dependent variables, mediators, moderators and controls. The framework must be more than a diagram: each proposed link should be justified by theory and evidence.

For instance, stakeholder and legitimacy perspectives may suggest that stronger climate disclosure responds to external pressure. Signalling theory may suggest that credible disclosure reduces information asymmetry. The proposed relationship between disclosure and financing cost may therefore be mediated by perceived information risk and moderated by enforcement quality or assurance.

Propositions and hypotheses

A proposition is a reasoned statement about a conceptual relationship, often used in qualitative or theory-building research. A hypothesis is a specific, empirically testable prediction.

An effective hypothesis identifies constructs, direction where justified, population and conditions. For example:

H1: Among listed non-financial firms, higher-quality climate disclosure is associated with a lower cost of equity, controlling for firm risk and size.

This wording is preferable to claiming that disclosure “always reduces” the cost of equity. The review must justify the direction and explain how each construct will be measured. If prior evidence is genuinely mixed, a non-directional hypothesis or research question may be more appropriate.

8. Citation, integrity and responsible use of technology

Academic citation serves attribution, verification and intellectual honesty. Cite the original source for a theory or finding where possible. Cite a review when discussing the review itself, not as a substitute for every primary study it mentions. Ensure that every significant factual or empirical claim is supported by an appropriate source.

Common integrity failures include fabricated references, inaccurate quotations, citation padding, plagiarism, self-plagiarism and citing papers that have not been read. Retraction status and corrections should be checked for important sources. Keep an audit trail of searches, notes and versions.

Generative artificial intelligence can assist with brainstorming keywords, identifying synonyms, organising notes or explaining unfamiliar terminology. It may also invent citations, misrepresent findings, reproduce bias or obscure the researcher’s responsibility. Do not submit machine-generated references without verification. Follow institutional rules on disclosure and permitted use. The researcher remains responsible for the search strategy, interpretation, citations, confidentiality and originality of the review.

Ethically, literature reviews should represent inconvenient evidence fairly. Researchers should not exclude studies merely because results contradict the preferred hypothesis. Funding sources, conflicts of interest and industry sponsorship deserve attention, particularly in accounting, auditing, ESG and financial advice research.

9. Applied case: developing a review for a dissertation

Background

The following is an illustrative case. A bachelor student proposes to investigate whether sustainability disclosure affects the cost of equity for listed firms in an emerging market. The initial idea is broad and is not yet a defensible research design.

Problem

A preliminary internet search produces hundreds of results. Some studies measure ESG ratings, others measure narrative disclosure, carbon emissions or assurance. Some examine firm value, while others examine borrowing costs or stock volatility. The student initially concludes that “the literature proves sustainability disclosure lowers financing costs.”

Analysis

The supervisor asks the student to define the outcome and distinguish cost of debt from cost of equity. The student constructs three concept groups: disclosure, financing outcome and context. Search terms include sustainability, ESG, climate, non-financial reporting, cost of equity, financing cost, listed firm and emerging market.

The student searches two multidisciplinary databases and one economics database, records the dates and strings, removes duplicates and screens titles and abstracts. The inclusion criteria require a study to examine a firm-level disclosure measure, a financing or market-information outcome, and a clearly explained empirical or conceptual method. Studies focused solely on consumer attitudes are excluded because they do not address the research question.

The evidence matrix reveals three patterns. First, studies using broad commercial ESG ratings often report negative associations with financing costs. Second, studies using hand-collected disclosure indices produce more mixed results because index construction differs. Third, effects appear stronger where reporting requirements, assurance or investor attention are greater. Several studies use cross-sectional data and cannot convincingly establish causality.

Approach and solution

The student reframes the review around three themes: measurement of disclosure quality, mechanisms linking disclosure to information risk, and institutional conditions affecting credibility. Legitimacy theory explains external pressure to disclose, while signalling theory explains how credible information may distinguish firms. The student identifies a contextual gap: limited evidence examines listed firms under the emerging market’s recent reporting requirements, particularly where assurance practices vary.

The resulting research question is:

How is the quality of climate-related disclosure associated with the cost of equity among listed non-financial firms following the introduction of new reporting requirements?

A cautious hypothesis is developed only after reviewing the evidence:

H1: Higher-quality climate-related disclosure is associated with a lower cost of equity, with the relationship expected to be stronger when disclosure is externally assured.

The student also states that the design will test association rather than prove causality unless a credible identification strategy is available. Measurement choices, control variables and limitations are specified in the methodology chapter.

Outcome

The revised review is shorter than the original collection of sources but more persuasive. It demonstrates how the question emerged, why the chosen context matters, what evidence supports the proposed relationship and where uncertainty remains.

Learning points

1. A broad topic must be converted into searchable concepts and a bounded question.
2. Inconsistent findings often reflect differences in measurement and context.
3. A gap is persuasive only when its significance and remedy are explained.
4. Hypotheses should follow from theory and evaluated evidence, not from personal expectation.
5. Transparent search records strengthen the credibility of a dissertation.

10. Best-practice workflow

A practical workflow is:

1. Write a preliminary question and scope statement.
2. Conduct an exploratory search to learn terminology.
3. Build a concept table and draft Boolean strings.
4. Select appropriate databases and document each search.
5. Apply inclusion and exclusion criteria consistently.
6. Use backward and forward citation chaining.
7. Maintain an evidence matrix while reading.
8. Appraise theory, measures, design, analysis and context.
9. Group studies into analytical themes and compare explanations.
10. Draft the gap, conceptual framework and research question together.
11. Derive propositions or hypotheses with operational definitions.
12. Verify every citation, update the search and report limitations.

The process is iterative, but iteration should improve the logic rather than conceal arbitrary selection. A good review makes its boundaries visible and allows a reader to understand how the dissertation’s contribution follows from the evidence.

Challenges and limitations

No literature search is complete in an absolute sense. Database coverage differs, terminology changes, paywalls restrict access and language limits can exclude relevant evidence. Publication bias may make positive findings easier to locate than null results. Citation networks may favour established authors and institutions. Rapidly changing areas such as digital finance and sustainability regulation may outdate a review quickly.

Critical reading also involves judgement. Different methodological traditions use different standards of quality, and a study that is weak for causal estimation may still offer valuable contextual explanation. The appropriate response is not false certainty but explicit reasoning about what each source can and cannot establish.

Chapter Summary

A literature search and critical review establish the scholarly foundation of an accounting and finance dissertation. Effective work begins with a focused review question and proceeds through structured database searching, synonym development, Boolean logic, citation chaining and transparent inclusion criteria. Screening and evidence matrices make source selection and interpretation auditable.

Critical review requires evaluation of authority, relevance, theory, construct validity, research design, analysis, context and limitations. Synthesis compares studies and explains convergence or disagreement rather than listing results. Research gaps may be theoretical, empirical, methodological, contextual or practical, but they must be demonstrated rather than asserted. Conceptual frameworks connect theory to proposed relationships, while propositions and hypotheses should be cautious, testable and operationally clear. Ethical citation, verification of sources and responsible use of digital tools are essential to research integrity.

Key Terms

Literature review: A structured and reasoned synthesis of existing scholarly knowledge on a defined topic.

Critical synthesis: Integration and evaluation of studies that explains patterns, differences and implications.

Systematic review: A review using explicit and reproducible procedures for searching, selecting and appraising evidence.

Scoping review: A review that maps concepts, evidence types and boundaries of a field.

Peer review: Evaluation of scholarly work by knowledgeable experts before publication.

Boolean operator: A logical term such as AND, OR or NOT used to combine search concepts.

Truncation: A search technique that retrieves word variations using a symbol such as an asterisk.

Citation chaining: Finding sources through reference lists and later works that cite a publication.

Inclusion criterion: A predefined condition that a source must meet to enter a review.

Exclusion criterion: A predefined reason for removing a source from a review.

Evidence matrix: A structured table recording and comparing features of reviewed studies.

Construct validity: The extent to which a measure represents the concept it claims to measure.

Transferability: The extent to which findings can reasonably inform another context.

Theoretical gap: An unresolved limitation or conflict in existing explanatory theory.

Methodological gap: An unanswered issue arising from limitations in prevailing research methods.

Conceptual framework: A reasoned representation of constructs and their expected relationships.

Proposition: A theoretically reasoned statement about a conceptual relationship.

Hypothesis: A specific, testable prediction about a relationship between variables or constructs.

Publication bias: The tendency for studies with certain results, often significant or positive results, to be more likely to appear in the published literature.

Research integrity: Honest, transparent and accountable conduct in designing, reporting and citing research.

Review Questions

5 Short Answer Questions

1. Why is a literature review more than a summary of previously published studies?
2. Explain the difference between the Boolean operators AND and OR.
3. What is the purpose of an evidence matrix?
4. Distinguish a proposition from a hypothesis.
5. Identify two threats to causal interpretation in quantitative accounting research.

5 Long Answer Questions

1. Explain how a student can develop a systematic search strategy from a broad accounting or finance topic. Include database selection, keywords, Boolean logic and documentation.
2. Discuss the criteria that should be used to evaluate the quality and relevance of sources in a critical literature review.
3. Compare narrative, systematic and scoping reviews, and explain when each may be appropriate for a bachelor dissertation.
4. Explain how theory, measurement, research design and institutional context can account for conflicting findings in accounting and finance research.
5. Describe how a literature review can lead from a research gap to a conceptual framework and testable hypothesis.

3 Analytical / Application Questions

1. You find twelve studies examining ESG disclosure and firm value. Seven report positive associations, three report no association and two report negative associations. Design an analytical approach for determining whether the disagreement reflects measurement, context, method or genuine theoretical conflict.
2. Construct three concept groups and a Boolean search string for a dissertation investigating whether audit committee financial expertise is associated with earnings management in listed firms.
3. A study reports that firms with higher sustainability ratings have a lower cost of capital, using one-year cross-sectional data. Critically assess what the study can establish, identify at least three limitations, and propose evidence that would strengthen the conclusion.

Multiple Choice Questions with Answers

Question 1

What is the primary purpose of a critical literature review?

A. To list as many publications as possible

B. To compare, evaluate and synthesise existing evidence

C. To replace the dissertation’s methodology

D. To report only studies supporting the researcher’s view

Correct Answer: B. To compare, evaluate and synthesise existing evidence

Question 2

Which Boolean operator broadens a search by combining synonyms?

A. AND

B. NOT

C. OR

D. WITHIN

Correct Answer: C. OR

Question 3

Which source-selection practice best supports a transparent review?

A. Selecting papers solely by citation count

B. Changing criteria whenever results are inconvenient

C. Using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria

D. Relying only on the first page of internet results

Correct Answer: C. Using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria

Question 4

What does backward citation chaining involve?

A. Finding later papers that cite a selected article

B. Examining the reference list of a selected article

C. Removing duplicate database records

D. Searching only for the newest publications

Correct Answer: B. Examining the reference list of a selected article

Question 5

Which statement best distinguishes association from causation?

A. An association always proves that one variable causes another

B. Causation can be established from statistical significance alone

C. An observed relationship may result from confounding or reverse causality

D. Causal claims do not require a research design

Correct Answer: C. An observed relationship may result from confounding or reverse causality

Question 6

What is the main purpose of an evidence matrix?

A. To automate the interpretation of all findings

B. To record and compare important features of studies

C. To calculate a journal’s impact factor

D. To replace source citations

Correct Answer: B. To record and compare important features of studies

Question 7

Which is an example of a contextual research gap?

A. No theory has ever been proposed for the topic

B. Existing studies use different statistical software

C. A relationship has been little examined in a particular country or market

D. The researcher prefers a different hypothesis

Correct Answer: C. A relationship has been little examined in a particular country or market

Question 8

Which statement about a hypothesis is most accurate?

A. It is a specific prediction that can be empirically tested

B. It is a list of all sources found in a database

C. It must always predict a positive relationship

D. It is identical to a research topic

Correct Answer: A. It is a specific prediction that can be empirically tested

Question 9

Why should citation counts not be used as the sole measure of source quality?

A. Citation counts provide no information about publication date

B. Highly cited work can still have limitations and may reflect field or age biases

C. Citation counts are never available for journal articles

D. Only uncited articles are academically reliable

Correct Answer: B. Highly cited work can still have limitations and may reflect field or age biases

Question 10

Which practice is most consistent with responsible use of generative AI in a literature review?

A. Accepting AI-generated references without checking them

B. Using AI output as evidence without citing original studies

C. Using AI for limited assistance while verifying sources and following institutional rules

D. Allowing AI to select the final sample without researcher judgement

Correct Answer: C. Using AI for limited assistance while verifying sources and following institutional rules