MM4SLR Logo

Welcome to the maturity model for systematic literature review process. Please, access the top-left menu to navigate in the tool pages.

Why do we need a maturity model for SLR?

A maturity model for Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) Process is needed to provide researchers with a structured framework that guides the progressive improvement of their review processes. SLRs are complex and resource-intensive, and without clear benchmarks, researchers may struggle with issues such as lack of rigor, inconsistent documentation, or unreliable results. A maturity model defines levels of process quality, from basic execution to continuous optimization, helping researchers understand where their current practices stand and what steps are necessary to enhance them. By offering a roadmap for systematic development, the model promotes greater transparency, reproducibility, and reliability of SLRs, ultimately strengthening the quality of evidence generated for the scientific community.

FAQ

The Maturity Model for Systematic Literature Reviews Process (MM4SLR) is inspired by other well-known models, but it adapts the idea of a maturity model to the contexto of SLR. It defines five maturity levels (1–5) that represents a stair that researchers should use to make their process more rigorous, and optimized. MM4SLR is able to guide researchers in evaluating their practices and progressively improving the quality of their reviews.

Systematic reviews involve complex processes—planning, execution, quality assessment, and reporting—that directly affect their validity. The maturity model provides a structured way to assess rigor, identify gaps, and establish priorities for improvement. It also allows comparability between different SLRs and serves as a roadmap for better practices.

MM4SLR defines six levels of maturity:
  • Level 0 - Incomplete: No systematization; results lack rigor and consistency.
  • Level 1 - Performed: Basic execution of SLR studies with little to no concern for quality or documentation rigor. The primary goal is to complete the review as quickly as possible, without considering future replication, updates, or transparency for other researchers (or even themselves).
  • Level 2 - Managed: The SLR process is structured and controlled to ensure quality, reliability, auditability, replicability, and related aspects. Processes are clearly documented, monitored, and managed.
  • Level 4 - Measured: SLR processes incorporate metrics and statistical analyses to evaluate multiple aspects of the research work (e.g., time and effort, reproducibility, transparency).
  • Level 5 - Optimizing: SLR processes operate at the highest level of quality and process management. Researchers continuously assess and strengthen the impact of results, update reviews when needed, reproduce or adapt SLR components in other works, and apply optimization practices to enhance future studies.

The model is built upon three core concepts:
  • Key Practices (KPs): Concrete actions researchers can adopt to comply with dimensions/levels and advance maturity levels.
  • Practice Instances (PIs): Instances (examples) on how to accomplish a key practice
  • Dimensions (D): Group of key practices that represents an specific SLR process area. They segment the KPs to provide a more organized view on which practices are needed for each level.
Together, they provide a structured path for systematically improving SLR processes.

Researchers can perform a self-assessment by mapping their SLR processes against the KPs defined at each maturity level. Your maturity model is the lowest level that you achieved in any dimension. For instance, of you achieved level (5) in Tool Support and level (2) in Design & Planning you can assume that your maturity level is two.

Yes. MM4SLR is a living model. As new practices, tools, and metrics for SLRs emerge, the model can be updated to refine maturity levels, incorporate new PAs, and better support the research community.

Yes. Please refer to the official publication or documentation of MM4SLR for citation details. Proper citation also contributes to its dissemination and validation within the research community.

Systematic Literature Reviews Guidelines

  • Kitchenham, B.; Charters, S. - Guidelines for Performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering (EBSE-2007-01)
  • Brereton, P.; Kitchenham, B.; Budgen, D.; Turner, M.; Khalil, M. - Lessons from Applying the Systematic Literature Review Process within the Software Engineering Domain
  • Wohlin, C. - Guidelines for Snowballing in Systematic Literature Studies and a Replication in Software Engineering
  • Wohlin, C.; Mendes, E.; Romero Felizardo, K.; Kalinowski, M. - Guidelines for the Search Strategy to Update Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering
  • Kitchenham, B.; Budgen, D.; Brereton, P. - Evidence-Based Software Engineering and Systematic Reviews (book)