Boote and Beile (2005) recommend that the review of literature should encompass key views on the topic in question. They provide a basis for judging this. First in the framework is what he terms coverage meaning the adequacy of the exposure of the topic, as well as discussing explicit criteria for exclusion and inclusion of studies for the review. It should be clear whether the reviewer includes relevant works and excludes irrelevant ones. Literature review does not mean citing every study ever written on the topic
Synthesis is the second category, and it refers to how well the author studied, evaluated, and blended the selected literature on a topic. The criteria should include how well the author succeeded in distinguishing what has been accomplished in the field from what requires undertaking. In addition, the researcher should be explicit on how they view the reviewed studies in the environment of the broader scholarly literature while acknowledging the research in the historical context of the field.
Boote & Beile (2005) further write of methodology as a criterion for judging a literature review. This refers to the writer’s accurate inclusion of details about method that have relevance for identification of behaviours and actions for determining relevant operations to undertake in the research and discussion of the connection between concepts and philosophies in the field to the research methodologies. Significance is the fourth category and includes establishing both the applied and the intellectual implication of the research problem.
Rhetoric is the final category and it refers to the writers’ ability to consolidate thoughts and write coherently about the literature in such a way that they can articulate and substantiate their claims about the knowledge in the field. Be this as it may, Boote & Beile (2005) lament that advanced research textbooks and handbooks ignore the subject of literature review and focus mainly on methods of data collection, interpretation, and philosophical issues. Shulman (1999) argues that generativity along with discipline, publication, and peer review—is one of the hallmarks of distinguished scholarship. He explains generativity as the ability to build on the scholarship and research of preceding authors.
In support of Shulman, Creswell (1994) suggests that the literature review should present results of similar studies, juxtapose the present study to the ongoing discourse in the literature, and provide a structure for comparing the results of a study with other studies. As a caution, Lather (1999) argued that a synthetic review should serve a critical role in gatekeeping, policing, and leading to new productive work, rather than merely mirroring research in a field. This is in agreement to notions raised above by Boote & Beile (2005)
This review will proceed from the advice proffered above and look at each section of the article by Dr Bayon to determine his intention in writing, the methodology he employed, the literature he cites as well as his conclusion. In this analysis, the impact factor will not be taken into account since according to Garfield (2007) the uses and misuses have been contested. It is worth noting though that the paper had no citations on google scholar at the time of this review.