Time-sliced Systematic Literature Review
Also known as: temporal systematic review, period-based systematic review, chronological systematic review, time-segmented literature review
A time-sliced systematic literature review applies the rigorous search, screening, and synthesis protocol of a standard systematic review while dividing the retrieved corpus into discrete temporal periods — time slices — and analyzing each period separately. This design reveals how a research field has developed across time: which topics emerged, grew, or declined; how key authors and journals shifted; and how intellectual structures evolved from one era to the next.
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 time-sliced systematic literature review when the research question explicitly concerns how a field has changed over time — identifying the emergence of new topics, the decline of older paradigms, or shifts in dominant journals and authors. It is particularly appropriate for reviews spanning more than ten years of literature in a fast-moving field, or whenever stakeholders need a developmental map rather than a static cross-section. Do not use it when the corpus is too small (fewer than ~100 included records) to support meaningful sub-group analysis per period, when all included studies are from a narrow time window with no meaningful temporal variation, or when the research question calls only for a pooled effect-size estimate rather than a historical narrative.
Strengths & limitations
- Reveals the temporal dynamics of a research field — emergence, growth, consolidation, and decline of topics and communities.
- Retains the methodological rigor of a full systematic review, including reproducible search strategy and PRISMA-compliant screening.
- Directly comparable cross-period analysis is possible because identical analytic techniques are applied to each time slice.
- Supports evidence-informed research-agenda setting by distinguishing mature from emerging research fronts.
- Visualizations such as overlay maps and Sankey diagrams make longitudinal trends accessible to non-specialist audiences.
- Requires a large enough corpus that each time slice contains sufficient records for valid analysis; thin slices may produce unreliable or uninterpretable results.
- The choice of slice boundaries is partly subjective; different boundary decisions can yield different narratives about when the field shifted.
- More time-consuming and computationally intensive than a single-period systematic review, especially when bibliometric network analyses are applied to each slice.
- Publication and citation lag means the most recent time slice may underrepresent the current state of the field compared with older slices.
Frequently asked
How many time slices should I use?
There is no universal rule. Common practice is three to six slices of equal length or delimited by publication-density breakpoints. The key constraint is that each slice must contain enough records — typically at least 30 to 50 — to produce interpretable bibliometric networks. If equal intervals produce very sparse early slices, consider merging those periods or using unequal intervals justified by publication volume.
Do I need to apply PRISMA reporting to a time-sliced review?
Yes. The PRISMA flow diagram and checklist apply to the full corpus screening process, not to individual time slices. The time-slicing strategy should be reported transparently in the methods section, including the rationale for the chosen boundaries, so that the review is reproducible.
What is the difference between a time-sliced systematic review and a thematic evolution analysis?
Thematic evolution analysis is a specific bibliometric technique that tracks how keyword clusters shift across periods, often visualized as Sankey-style alluvial diagrams. A time-sliced systematic literature review is a broader review design that can incorporate thematic evolution analysis as one of its analytic steps, but may also include citation analysis, authorship analysis, content coding, or other techniques alongside it.
Can I run a time-sliced review using bibliometrix or VOSviewer?
Yes. Both tools support period-based analysis. bibliometrix (R) has a dedicated temporal map function and supports slice-by-slice network analysis. VOSviewer can generate separate cluster maps for each period from exported subsets. The analyst exports each time-slice sub-corpus separately and applies the chosen visualization to each.
What if I cannot pre-specify the time slices before data collection?
Best practice is to pre-specify the slicing strategy in the review protocol before screening. If the corpus size per period is unknown until after screening, the protocol should state a decision rule — for example, 'slices will be merged if a period contains fewer than 30 records' — so the final boundary decisions are transparent and not data-driven in a way that could bias the narrative.
Sources
- Zupic, I., & Cater, T. (2015). Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. DOI: 10.1177/1094428114562629 ↗
- Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007 ↗
How to cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Time-sliced Systematic Literature Review. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/scientometrics/time-sliced-systematic-literature-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
- Co-Citation AnalysisBibliometrics↔ compare
- Science MappingBibliometrics↔ compare
- Systematic Literature ReviewScientometrics↔ compare
- Thematic Evolution AnalysisScientometrics↔ compare