The paper provides a guideline on how to write a good literature review, by taking experiences from the MISQ Review publication process.

To begin with, Webster & Watson identified the challenges for theoretical development on the IS field of study down to two major factor: (1) The relative youth of the IS field, and (2) the complexity of assembling a review in an interdisciplinary field. The second point is a valid and very important, as IT/IS is more so embedded into the business. IT/IS cannot be viewed in isolation and the implication for the potential reviewers is that they must have a broad knowledge base to build their case and draw up a conclusion.

On the next part, the authors draws a parallel of writing a review to writing a thesis. They specifies two types of review:

1. Mature topic where an accumulated body of research exists that needs analysis and synthesis, and
2. Emerging issue that would benefit from exposure to potential theoretical foundations.

For the main part, Webster & Watson guides potential reviewers on the process of writing a good review. Some of the key points are: the review must attract the reader early on, be based around central concepts, and build upon past findings (research).

The authors then states that a review should identify critical knowledge gaps and motivate researchers to fill these gaps. It can be achieved by examining past research and develops a model for future research. The authors also provides a recommendation for reviewers who wishes to develop a model and justify its propositions:

1. Provide a theoretical explanations,
2. Present past empirical findings, and/or
3. Draw upon practice and experience.

There is a need for a balance between the three in order to make a solid argument. The theory is central to the case, but it need to be backed up with past findings and draws relevance to current practice (and/or the reviewer’s own experience).

To finish off the review, the reviewers must re-evaluate the theory by inviting feedback from its peers. On this subject, there is an emerging trend of mass collaboration, and it would be insightful if the author can revisit their paper and provide an update on how this feedback process have changed since 2002.