RCE (rationale–cogency–extent) criterion unravels features affecting citation impact of top-ranked systematic literature reviews: leaving the impression… is all you need

Hijacked from medical and health sciences, Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) are widely (ab)used in many scientific domains. Considering the ability to provide transparency and replicability of research results, many scientists consider an SLR a safe avenue for attaining scientific impact, given that the theoretical probability of acceptance is relatively high. Relying on dual analysis of Partial Least Squares Discriminant Analysis (PLS-DA) and Network Analysis (NA), the study identifies key features associated with citation impact within top-tier SLRs. Next, the study introduces Rationale, Cogency, and Extent (RCE) criterion for evaluating potential markers that predict citation impact using two case studies of SLRs from engineering domain. The findings suggest that the informal logic for starting a review significantly correlates with citation impact. Additionally, journal- and author-level metrics, along with RCE composite scores, display significant difference between top- and bottom-ranked SLRs. Through NA, reporting the quality assessment of studies (QATR) emerges as the most influential node within the RCE network. Despite its lack of direct correlation with citation impact, we conclude that QATR is a moderating variable. Finally, the study concludes that a well-articulated research question, alignment with existing evidence, and rigorous data use collectively serve as a blueprint for producing a high-quality SLR.