Field-mapping Scoping Review
Also known as: field-mapping scoping study, evidence-mapping scoping review, field map review, scoping review for field mapping
A field-mapping scoping review is a purposive variant of the scoping review in which the overarching goal is to chart the conceptual and empirical landscape of a research field — identifying what has been studied, by whom, using which methods, and where knowledge gaps remain. It follows the Arksey and O'Malley scoping framework but is explicitly oriented toward producing a structured map of a field rather than answering a focused clinical or policy question.
Read the full method
Sign in with a free account to read this section.
Method map
The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.
When to use it
Use a field-mapping scoping review when the goal is to survey and characterise a research field — its scope, key concepts, methodological variety, and knowledge gaps — rather than to estimate an effect size or evaluate evidence quality. It is especially appropriate at the outset of a research programme, when commissioning a research agenda, or when a field is heterogeneous and systematic review is premature. Do NOT use this design if the question requires a quantitative pooled estimate (use meta-analysis), if quality appraisal of included studies is essential (use a systematic review), or if the question is sufficiently narrow and the evidence base mature enough for a targeted synthesis.
Strengths & limitations
- Provides a structured, comprehensive overview of an entire field, surfacing patterns invisible from individual studies.
- Broad inclusion criteria and no quality appraisal requirement make it faster to conduct than a full systematic review.
- Explicitly identifies research gaps and informs future research agendas and funding priorities.
- Flexible enough to accommodate heterogeneous literature spanning multiple disciplines, methods, and contexts.
- PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines ensure transparency and reproducibility.
- Does not assess the quality or risk of bias of included studies, so findings cannot be used to make evidence-based recommendations about effectiveness.
- The breadth of inclusion means the synthesis remains descriptive; it cannot produce pooled quantitative estimates.
- Broad search strategies generate large volumes of records, making screening resource-intensive.
- Results may quickly become outdated in rapidly evolving fields, requiring regular updating.
Frequently asked
How does a field-mapping scoping review differ from a standard scoping review?
All field-mapping scoping reviews are scoping reviews, but not all scoping reviews are field-mapping reviews. The field-mapping variant has an explicitly cartographic purpose: the primary output is a structured map of what the field covers, who has studied it, and where gaps lie. Other scoping reviews may answer a specific concept- or population-focused question without producing a full field map.
Should I conduct quality appraisal of included studies?
No. Quality appraisal is not a required step in a scoping review. The purpose is to map the landscape, not to evaluate the strength of evidence. Including or excluding studies based on quality would distort the map by removing portions of the field. If quality appraisal is needed, a systematic review is more appropriate.
What reporting guideline should I follow?
Use PRISMA-ScR (PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews), published by Tricco et al. in 2018 in JAMA. It includes a flow diagram for the screening process and a checklist covering all elements specific to scoping reviews.
How many databases should I search?
For a field-mapping scoping review, searching a minimum of two to three major bibliographic databases relevant to the field is standard practice. For interdisciplinary fields, five or more databases may be needed. Grey literature searching is also recommended to avoid publication bias in the map.
Can a field-mapping scoping review be used to justify a research proposal?
Yes — this is one of its most common uses. A field-mapping scoping review demonstrates awareness of the existing literature, identifies the specific gap the proposed research will address, and provides an evidence-based rationale for the study design, making it a strong foundation for grant applications and research protocols.
Sources
- Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic review and scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18, 143. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x ↗
- Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. DOI: 10.1080/1364557032000119616 ↗
How to cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Field-mapping Scoping Review. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/scientometrics/field-mapping-scoping-review
Which method?
Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.
- Bibliometric AnalysisScientometrics↔ compare
- Mapping ReviewScientometrics↔ compare
- Science MappingBibliometrics↔ compare
- Scoping ReviewScientometrics↔ compare
- Systematic Literature ReviewScientometrics↔ compare
- Thematic Evolution AnalysisScientometrics↔ compare