4.7 Review

The classification of online consumer reviews: A systematic literature review and integrative framework

Journal

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH
Volume 135, Issue -, Pages 226-251

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.06.038

Keywords

Integrative framework; Systematic review; Methodological analysis; Online consumer reviews; Online product reviews; Research agenda

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper aims to provide a systematic review of literature on online consumer reviews (OCRs) to understand their nature and complexity. Through the analysis of 234 papers, a comprehensive framework was developed to classify OCRs and discuss trends, insights, and future research directions in this field. The study also highlighted common features, research trends, and attempted to provide a comprehensive understanding of the scope of OCRs.
The objective of this paper is to conduct a systematic review of the literature on online consumer reviews (OCRs) in order to provide understanding of the multi-featured nature and complexity of such reviews and assist researchers and practitioners. A total of 234 papers covering a publication period from 2000 to July 2019 were included in our systematic analysis and a five-factor communication process framework served as a classification scheme. In addition to the insights into OCRs in terms of publication outlets, methodology, and data sources, the most commonly used features, most frequently examined response-based features, and consistent findings/discrepancies between previous studies are discussed in the synthesized results. Research trends identified during the observation period and future research directions are also highlighted. This study also made an attempt to develop an integrative framework of the five feature categories with the intention of providing a comprehensive picture of OCR scope.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available