Introduction
Database selection is a methodological decision, not an administrative one
There is no single database that indexes all business and management research. The databases you choose determine which papers you find, which means they directly determine what conclusions you can draw. Gusenbauer and Haddaway (2020), in the most comprehensive empirical evaluation of academic search systems available, are direct: the same query employed with a different search system may result in a different sample. Database selection is a validity issue, not a convenience choice.
Hiebl (2021), analysing 232 systematic reviews published in the Academy of Management Annals and International Journal of Management Reviews, found that published management SLRs used a mean of three databases. Peer reviewers at ABS-ranked journals now expect database selection to be justified, not just listed. A methods section that says "we searched Web of Science" without explaining why, which indices were included, or what subscription coverage was active will be flagged.
This guide presents the four tiers of database selection for business and management SLRs, a direct comparison of the two primary multidisciplinary databases, guidance on the specialist business databases most published management SLRs use, the evidence on Google Scholar, and a practical decision guide for researchers with different levels of institutional access.
01 · The Framework
The four tiers of database selection for management SLRs
Rather than a flat list of databases, a tiered framework helps you make decisions systematically, prioritising what is essential, adding what is discipline-relevant, and using supplementary sources strategically. The tier structure below reflects both the empirical evidence from Gusenbauer and Haddaway (2020) and the actual practice of published management SLRs in Hiebl (2021).
The two multidisciplinary citation indexes essential for any management SLR. Both rated PRINCIPAL by Gusenbauer and Haddaway (2020), meeting all necessary criteria for systematic search. Together they provide the most comprehensive coverage of peer-reviewed management literature. Neither alone is sufficient: Kumpulainen and Seppänen (2022) demonstrate non-overlapping coverage in social sciences and management, meaning using only one leaves a material gap.
Business-specific databases that index ABS-ranked management journals not covered by Tier 1. Hiebl (2021) found EBSCO BSC was used in 57% of published AMA and IJMR SLRs, the single most commonly used database, and ABI Inform/ProQuest in 44%. Both are rated PRINCIPAL by Gusenbauer and Haddaway (2020). For business and management research, at least one of these is essential to avoid significant coverage gaps.
Use selectively based on your research question's disciplinary reach. Emerald Insight for management and organisational behaviour journals; JSTOR for historical coverage and social science journals; EconLit for economics-adjacent management topics; PsycINFO for organisational psychology, HRM, and behavioural management. Not every management SLR needs all of these, but a review crossing into adjacent disciplines should consider which apply.
For supplementary grey literature identification, forward citation tracking, and locating working papers and preprints. Google Scholar's extraordinary coverage makes it useful for these specific tasks, but its technical limitations make it inappropriate as a primary systematic search database. See Section 4 for the empirical evidence on this distinction.
02 · The Primary Databases
Web of Science vs Scopus, which one, or both?
This is the most commonly searched database question in SLR methodology, and the answer for management researchers is both, where possible. Here is why, and what to prioritise when only one is available.
| Dimension | Web of Science | Scopus |
|---|---|---|
| Coverage philosophy | Quality over quantity, applies Garfield's law of concentration, indexing only journals judged to be most significant in each field. Stricter selection criteria than Scopus. | Breadth and quality, aims to be the largest comprehensive database of sufficient-quality research. Broader coverage than WoS, particularly in social sciences. |
| Social science & management coverage | Strong but narrower. Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) covers management well but excludes many regional and specialist journals indexed by Scopus. | Relatively higher social science coverage than WoS. Covers more management journals including those from emerging economy contexts (Italy, Spain, Brazil), relevant for Tier 1 geography targeting. |
| Record count (as of 2020) | 73 million+ records (Core Collection) | 77.8 million+ records |
| Systematic search suitability | PRINCIPAL, meets all necessary criteria per Gusenbauer & Haddaway (2020) | PRINCIPAL, meets all necessary criteria per Gusenbauer & Haddaway (2020) |
| Boolean & field codes | 18 field codes, full Boolean, search string up to 1,000 terms, advanced string field available | 79 field codes, full Boolean, search string up to 1,000 terms, advanced string field available |
| Reproducibility | Reproducible, identical queries return identical results (note: subscription coverage varies by institution) | Reproducible, identical queries return identical results |
| Citation metrics | Journal Impact Factor, h-index, citation counts, the established standard for academic evaluation (ANVUR, ANECA, REF) | CiteScore, SJR, SNIP, broader citation index, higher absolute citation counts due to larger database |
| Overlapping coverage | Kumpulainen & Seppänen (2022): non-overlapping coverage in social sciences and management is substantial, using only one leaves a material gap. Both recommended. | |
If you can only use one
For business and management research specifically, Scopus is the stronger single choice. Its broader social science coverage, higher journal count, and greater relevance for Italian, Spanish, and Brazilian management research (where many journals are indexed in Scopus but not WoS) makes it the better single database for this discipline. Report the limitation of using only one database explicitly in your methods section, as Hiebl (2021) confirms both are standard practice in published management SLRs.
Critical reporting requirement
Gusenbauer and Haddaway (2020) flag a common error: inexperienced researchers wrongly assume they are searching a single, distinct database when searching platforms like Web of Science or EbscoHost, when in truth those platforms aggregate multiple underlying databases. You must report not just the platform name but the specific indices or databases selected within it, for example, "Web of Science Core Collection (Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts and Humanities Citation Index)", and your institution's subscription coverage period.
03 · The Specialist Databases
ABI Inform and EBSCO Business Source Complete: the databases most published management SLRs actually use
The two specialist business databases are the most underexplained choice in management SLR guidance, yet Hiebl (2021) shows they are the most commonly used databases in published AMA and IJMR reviews. Understanding what they cover and how they differ from WoS and Scopus is essential for a comprehensive search strategy.
EBSCO Business Source Complete (BSC)
The most commonly used database in published management SLRs, 57% of database-driven reviews in Hiebl's (2021) AMA and IJMR sample. Business Source Complete is accessed via the EbscoHost platform and covers over 3,000 business, management, economics, finance, and accounting journals, including many ABS-ranked titles that are not indexed in Scopus or Web of Science. Particularly strong coverage of practitioner-facing and applied management journals, making it essential for reviews with practical relevance dimensions. Rated PRINCIPAL by Gusenbauer and Haddaway (2020). Important: report the specific database selected within EbscoHost, "EbscoHost, Business Source Complete", not just "EbscoHost."
ABI Inform / ProQuest
Used in 44% of published AMA and IJMR reviews (Hiebl, 2021). ABI Inform Global, accessed via ProQuest, provides coverage of 24 million+ records from 1855 onward, with particularly strong coverage of North American and international business journals. Rated PRINCIPAL by Gusenbauer and Haddaway (2020) with 29 field codes and full Boolean support. Important for management reviews: ProQuest ABI Inform is available in different subscription packages with substantially different result sets. You must report which version your institution subscribes to and the coverage period, as these vary significantly.
Emerald Insight
A publisher-specific database that indexes Emerald's own journal portfolio, which includes some of the most important management, organisational behaviour, and HRM journals: Journal of Management Development, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, and many ABS-ranked titles. Many of these journals are also indexed in WoS or Scopus, but Emerald Insight provides earlier and more complete coverage of its own titles. Essential for HRM, operations management, and public sector management SLRs. Used as a supplementary source in a significant minority of published management SLRs.
The coverage gap these databases fill
Heck et al. (2024), studying database coverage in social science systematic reviews, demonstrate that discipline-specific databases consistently outperform multidisciplinary sources in finding relevant literature, and that a combination of discipline-specific and multidisciplinary sources is the most efficient strategy. For management researchers, this means that WoS and Scopus alone, while comprehensive, will miss ABS-ranked journals that appear only in EBSCO BSC or ABI Inform. The three-database minimum (Hiebl, 2021) exists precisely to address this gap.
04 · Google Scholar
Google Scholar: the evidence for supplementary use only
Google Scholar is the default starting point for most academic researchers, and it is the wrong starting point for systematic literature reviews. This is not a matter of opinion. It is the conclusion of the most rigorous empirical evaluation of academic search systems available.
"Google Scholar's extraordinary coverage acting as a multidisciplinary compendium of scientific world knowledge should not blind users to the fact that users' ability to access this compendium is severely limited, especially in terms of a systematic search."
Gusenbauer & Haddaway (2020), Research Synthesis MethodsGusenbauer and Haddaway (2020) tested 28 academic search systems against the necessary and desired criteria for systematic review use. Of the 28, 14 were rated PRINCIPAL (suitable as primary databases) and 14 rated SUPPLEMENTARY. Google Scholar was rated SUPPLEMENTARY, one of the 14 systems that failed to meet necessary criteria for systematic search use. Here is the specific evidence:
The reproducibility failure is particularly significant. A systematic search must be replicable, another researcher applying the same query should retrieve the same results. Google Scholar is the only database of 28 tested that failed this requirement: repeated identical queries returned different result sets. This means a Google Scholar-based search cannot be documented in a way that satisfies PRISMA 2020 reproducibility requirements.
The Boolean functionality limitation is equally important. Google Scholar does not fully support Boolean operators. Reviewers who believe they are running a Boolean search in Google Scholar may be receiving results that do not accurately reflect their query, and the system does not alert them to this.
What Google Scholar is legitimately useful for
None of the above means Google Scholar has no role in an SLR. Gusenbauer and Haddaway (2020) confirm it has significant value for three specific supplementary uses: forward citation searching (finding papers that have cited a key source, Google Scholar has the most comprehensive citation index of all systems tested); grey literature identification (working papers, preprints, reports, theses not indexed in formal databases); and quick initial scoping before the formal systematic search. These are legitimate and valuable uses. The problem is using it as a primary or sole search database, which remains common and indefensible.
If a reviewer asks about your database selection
If your methods section lists Google Scholar as your primary or only database, expect a major revision or rejection request at any ABS-ranked journal. The evidence that Google Scholar does not meet systematic search standards is now well-established in the methodology literature. If you used it supplementarily, for citation tracking or grey literature, report it explicitly as supplementary with the specific purpose stated.
05 · Grey Literature
The grey literature question: when and how to include non-journal sources
Grey literature, material produced outside traditional academic peer-review processes, is more relevant to management SLRs than health science templates suggest. Adams et al. (2017), in the definitive IJMR study of grey literature use in management and organisational studies SLRs, found that approximately 23% of published academic management SLRs incorporate grey literature, and 48% at least acknowledge it as a potential source. All 16 practitioner-facing management SLRs in their sample included grey literature.
| Grey Literature Type | Management Relevance | How to Search |
|---|---|---|
| Working papers & preprints | High, management research is often circulated as working papers for years before journal publication. SSRN is the primary repository. | SSRN.com keyword search; Google Scholar supplementary search; ResearchGate |
| Conference proceedings | Moderate, Academy of Management, BAM, EURAM conference papers contain cutting-edge management research before journal publication | Academy of Management Online (AISeL); BAM conference proceedings; targeted Google Scholar |
| Government & policy reports | High for reviews with policy or public sector dimensions, OECD, World Bank, European Commission, national government departments | Organisation websites; Google targeted search (site:oecd.org, site:worldbank.org) |
| Practitioner & consultancy reports | Relevant for reviews addressing management practice, McKinsey Global Institute, Deloitte Insights, PwC research | Organisation websites; targeted Google search with date filters |
| Dissertations & theses | Lower priority but useful for niche or emerging topics, contains unpublished empirical work | ProQuest Dissertations and Theses; EThOS (UK); DART-Europe |
Adams et al. (2017) identify three specific reasons why management SLRs include grey literature that health science reviews do not: to extend scope into practice-relevant areas where scholarship lags; to explore novel or emerging research questions where peer-reviewed literature is thin; and to validate or corroborate findings from the academic literature through practitioner evidence. If your research question has any of these dimensions, excluding grey literature entirely requires explicit justification.
Reporting grey literature searches
If you search grey literature, report it with the same rigour as database searches: list each source searched, the search terms used, the date searched, and any quality appraisal criteria applied. Grey literature without abstracts cannot usually be screened at the title/abstract stage, a full-text review is required for each potentially relevant item. Report this as a methodological note in your methods section.
06 · The Decision Guide
Minimum viable database strategy by institutional access level
Institutional access constraints are real and should be reported as a limitation, not worked around silently. The following guide presents the minimum defensible database strategy at three levels of access. "Defensible" means publishable at ABS 3★ level with transparent reporting of limitations.
- Web of Science (Core Collection, SSCI, SCI-E)
- Scopus
- EBSCO Business Source Complete
- ABI Inform / ProQuest Global
- + Topic-dependent Tier 3 database
- + Google Scholar (supplementary, citation tracking & grey lit)
This combination matches or exceeds the standard of published AMA and IJMR management SLRs.
- Scopus (preferred if only one Tier 1 available)
- EBSCO Business Source Complete OR ABI Inform
- Google Scholar (supplementary)
Report the absence of WoS as a limitation. Note subscription coverage dates for all databases used.
- Scopus (free trial or institutional access)
- Google Scholar (supplementary, with documented limitations)
- SSRN (working papers)
Acknowledge coverage limitations explicitly. Consider requesting interlibrary access to EBSCO BSC, many universities provide this on request.
Access constraints must be reported, not hidden
Kuckertz and Block (2021) identify unjustified database selection as a desk rejection trigger. If your access was constrained, say so and explain what you did to mitigate the limitation. A transparent acknowledgement of access constraints is not a weakness, it is a methodological strength that reviewers respect. What they do not respect is unexplained choices that turn out to reflect access limitations discovered during peer review.
References
- Adams, R.J., Smart, P., & Huff, A.S. (2017). Shades of grey: guidelines for working with the grey literature in systematic reviews for management and organizational studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19, 432–454.
- Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N.R. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods, 11, 181–217.
- Heck, T., Keller, C., & Rittberger, M. (2024). Coverage and similarity of bibliographic databases to find most relevant literature for systematic reviews in education. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 25, 365–376.
- Hiebl, M.R.W. (2021). Sample selection in systematic literature reviews of management research. Organizational Research Methods, 26(2), 229–261.
- Kuckertz, A., & Block, J. (2021). Reviewing systematic literature reviews: ten key questions and criteria for reviewers. Management Review Quarterly, 71, 519–524.
- Kumpulainen, M., & Seppänen, M. (2022). Combining Web of Science and Scopus datasets in citation-based literature study. Scientometrics, 127, 5613–5631.
- Pranckutė, R. (2021). Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: the titans of bibliographic information in today's academic world. Publications, 9(1), 12.
- Stahlschmidt, S., & Stephen, D. (2020). Comparison of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions databases. DZHW, German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies.
- Valente, A., Holanda, M., Mariano, A.M., Furuta, R., & Da Silva, D. (2021). Analysis of academic databases for literature review in the computer science education field. IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.