Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37180911›Full record

ReviewHeliyon2023

What is known about personal reputation? A systematic literature review.

M Victoria Carrillo-Durán, Ramsés Cabrera-Gala, Laura B Sánchez-Baltasar

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

M Victoria Carrillo-DuránFaculty of Documentation and Communication, University of Extremadura, Badajoz, Spain.
Ramsés Cabrera-GalaFaculty of Management, Faculty of Engineering Science, BUAP, CRS. UPAEP, Puebla, Mexico.
Laura B Sánchez-BaltasarFaculty of Engineering Science, UPAEP, Puebla, Mexico.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This systematic literature review encompassed the results of previous research on personal reputation and found opportunities in state of the literature to guide future research in communication, management, and other disciplines in the social sciences. A content analysis was conducted of 91 manuscripts from 1984 to November 2022, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The findings suggest that the amount of literature on personal reputation has increased since 2006; however, it is still in a developing stage. Due to its scarcity, it is advisable to conduct more qualitative and probability studies. For this review, several of the most cited articles are probably pioneering manuscripts that contributed to building the personal reputation construct. This review establishes a total of six categories for guiding future research opportunities on personal reputation. To facilitate the classification of the different future research opportunities, some types of areas suggested by Gomez-Trujillo et al. were considered. The discussion of future research opportunities includes categories like Causes and Effects, Inventories and Scales, Online and Digital Context, Organizational and Group Environments, Leaders and Top Management Executives, and Theory-building. On the other hand, this study could be considered the first step towards future research on how personal reputation influences audiences' opinions and perceptions in different research fields. It also opens the possibility of conducting more specific systematic literature reviews on this topic. Finally, this manuscript offers an overview of the present and the future of construct of personal reputation in the social sciences.

Indexed as

AudiencesIndividual reputationPersonal reputationPRISMASystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37180911
PMCPMC10172892

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.