The case for systematic reviews in religion: an under-used way of approaching previous research

This conceptual and methodological article argues for the increased use of systematic reviews in the study of religion. As our starting point, we analysed academic articles published in the same 50 journals that were the focus of Engler and Stausberg's (2024) critical assessment of the journal Religion's publication history. We investigate to what extent the 50 journals published systematic reviews between 2011 and 2024, finding that systematic reviews are rarely published within the field of religion. The study of religion is marked by disciplinary fragmentation, conceptual ambiguities, and a diversity of source materials, theories and methods. We argue that systematic reviews are suitable for the study of religion because they offer a thorough methodological approach and critical transparency in the process of collecting, evaluating, summarizing and citing previous research in ways that minimize bias. To support this argument, we discuss how existing guidelines for conducting scoping reviews - which we see as one type of systematic review - can be adapted to fit the study of religion, including in light of the development of artificial intelligence. Ultimately, the article argues for a reflexive and context-sensitive use of systematic reviews that respects the epistemological distinctiveness of the study of religion while enabling greater transparency, visibility and coherence.