VOSviewer-Assisted Systematic Literature Review
Also known as: VOSviewer SLR, bibliometric-enhanced systematic review, VOSviewer-integrated review, visualization-assisted SLR
A VOSviewer-assisted systematic literature review combines the rigorous search-and-appraisal pipeline of a standard systematic review with bibliometric network visualization produced by the VOSviewer software. The approach allows researchers to systematically retrieve and screen the literature while simultaneously mapping co-citation clusters, keyword co-occurrence networks, and institutional collaboration patterns, yielding both a narrative synthesis and a visual, quantitative overview of the field's intellectual structure.
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
Recommend this approach when a field has a substantial and growing body of literature (typically 100 or more records post-screening) and the reviewer wants both a rigorous qualitative synthesis and a quantitative map of the field's intellectual structure. It is particularly valuable for overview or state-of-the-art reviews in management, information science, engineering, and health sciences where the field's structure is itself of interest. Do not use it as a substitute for a genuine SLR when the goal is clinical or policy decision-making requiring rigorous risk-of-bias appraisal; in that context the bibliometric layer is supplementary, not core. Also avoid this approach when the corpus is too small (fewer than 50 records) for meaningful network analysis, or when the reviewer does not have access to Web of Science or Scopus exports.
Strengths & limitations
- Combines the transparency and reproducibility of a systematic search with visual, quantitative intelligence about the field's intellectual architecture.
- VOSviewer is freely available and produces publication-quality network maps with relatively modest technical skill requirements.
- Keyword co-occurrence and co-citation maps can surface research clusters and seminal papers that a purely narrative review might overlook.
- The dual-layer output — qualitative synthesis plus bibliometric maps — appeals to journals and funders seeking both depth and breadth in literature reviews.
- Temporal overlay in VOSviewer allows identification of emerging versus mature research fronts within the same workflow.
- Coverage is limited to databases that export structured bibliographic data; grey literature and non-indexed sources are typically excluded, which can bias the network.
- VOSviewer network quality depends heavily on the completeness of reference and keyword metadata; missing or inconsistent data (common in non-English or older records) degrade the maps.
- Bibliometric maps describe co-occurrence patterns, not causal or conceptual relationships; cluster labels require expert interpretation and can be misleading if applied mechanically.
- The method does not replace formal risk-of-bias appraisal; reviewers may be tempted to treat a large corpus as implying high-quality evidence.
Frequently asked
Which VOSviewer analysis type should I use — co-citation, bibliographic coupling, or keyword co-occurrence?
The choice depends on the question. Co-citation analysis of references reveals the intellectual foundations of a field (which prior works are consistently cited together). Bibliographic coupling of documents identifies current research fronts (which recent papers share similar reference lists). Keyword co-occurrence maps thematic clusters in the literature. Most comprehensive reviews apply at least two of these in combination and present each map separately.
Can I use Scopus data instead of Web of Science?
Yes. VOSviewer accepts CSV exports from Scopus and RIS files from various sources. Scopus has broader coverage in social sciences and engineering, while Web of Science tends to have more complete cited-reference data for co-citation analysis. Many reviewers query both databases, deduplicate, and construct networks from the combined export.
How large does my corpus need to be for VOSviewer maps to be meaningful?
There is no strict rule, but meaningful network structures typically emerge with at least 100 records for keyword co-occurrence analysis and at least 50 records for co-citation or bibliographic coupling. With very small corpora the minimum-count thresholds needed to keep the map readable exclude so many nodes that the remaining network is not informative.
Does using VOSviewer satisfy PRISMA reporting requirements?
VOSviewer maps supplement but do not replace PRISMA-compliant reporting. The PRISMA flow diagram, eligibility criteria, and risk-of-bias assessment (where applicable) must still be reported according to the appropriate PRISMA extension. Bibliometric figures are typically presented alongside, not instead of, standard SLR reporting elements.
Is VOSviewer-assisted review considered a mixed-methods design?
It can be characterized as a mixed-methods review in the sense that it integrates quantitative bibliometric data with qualitative content analysis. However, it is not mixed-methods in the traditional sense of combining primary quantitative and qualitative data collection. It is better described as a bibliometric-enhanced systematic review or a hybrid review design.
Sources
- van Eck, N.J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3 ↗
- Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. EBSE Technical Report EBSE-2007-01, Keele University and Durham University. link ↗
How to cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). VOSviewer-Assisted Systematic Literature Review. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/scientometrics/vosviewer-assisted-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.
- Bibliographic CouplingBibliometrics↔ compare
- Bibliometric AnalysisScientometrics↔ compare
- Co-Citation AnalysisBibliometrics↔ compare
- Science MappingBibliometrics↔ compare
- Scientometric AnalysisScientometrics↔ compare
- Systematic Literature ReviewScientometrics↔ compare