Introduction

The mapping review, also known as a systematic map, is a particular and increasingly important methodological approach in scientific research. It was developed and refined by the EPPI-Centre of the Institute of Education in London, with the goal of recording, organizing, and classifying the existing literature in a specific field of study. Its main purpose is to identify the gaps in available knowledge, which may require either further reviews or new primary research. The value of this method is twofold: on the one hand, it allows researchers to gain a deeper understanding of the scope and diversity of the studies already conducted, while on the other hand, it creates a foundation on which policy decisions, professional practices, or future research projects can be based.

Aims and Characteristics

In contrast to other types of reviews, the mapping review does not aim to synthesize findings into a single conclusion nor to prove a particular hypothesis. Instead, it seeks to provide a mapping of research activity by systematically presenting the themes, methodologies, theoretical frameworks, and characteristics of the studies that have been carried out. A distinctive feature of this approach is that the final outcome is not predetermined. Frequently, the result of the process may be the emergence of a need for further investigation, the identification of gaps that had not been previously observed, or the realization that the existing body of knowledge is sufficiently mature for a more in-depth synthesis. In this way, the mapping review is directly linked to the development and planning of research in a given field.

Usefulness for Policy and Research

The mapping review is particularly significant for those involved in policy-making, as well as for professionals who need to implement evidence-based practices. Through its transparency and systematic methodology, it enables the identification of critical questions related to the evaluation or implementation of a policy. At the same time, it provides researchers with a broad overview of how a subject has been studied so far, which population groups have been studied more extensively and which have been neglected, as well as which theoretical frameworks dominate. The ability to categorize studies based on their setting, methodological tools, or theoretical approach substantially contributes to the creation of a comprehensive mapping that facilitates targeted decision-making.

Supporting Decision-Making

An important dimension of the mapping review is its contribution to evidence-based decision-making. By presenting the volume and diversity of the studies, it becomes possible to identify whether the body of existing literature is sufficiently homogeneous to support a systematic synthesis, or whether further research is required. It can also prove useful for assessing the adequacy of the resources and time needed for a more comprehensive review. In this sense, systematic maps do not function merely as descriptive records but also as strategic planning tools for both research and practice.

Limitations and Challenges

Despite their value, mapping reviews also present certain limitations. First of all, they are often influenced by the publication date of the studies, which can result in overlooking more recent developments. In addition, they tend to be less analytical than other types of reviews, as they focus more on description rather than synthesis of findings. This can lead to oversimplifications and the concealment of critical differences or heterogeneities among the studies. Another significant limitation is that mapping reviews usually do not include an evaluation of the quality of the studies examined. As a result, their findings cannot be used as solid evidence without further critical appraisal. This weakness does not reduce their importance but serves as a reminder that they represent a preliminary step, a tool that prepares the ground for more in-depth research and critical evaluation.

Conclusions

The mapping review or systematic map is a valuable and flexible tool that responds to the need for better organization and understanding of research activity in various fields. With its ability to systematically capture the existing literature, identify gaps, and set the basis for future research directions, it contributes significantly to the advancement of science and the support of decision-making. Although accompanied by limitations, such as the lack of in-depth analysis and the absence of quality assessment, its value lies precisely in its preparatory role. It does not provide final answers but opens the way for more complete and well-documented research. Consequently, systematic maps should not be regarded as a final product but as a dynamic process that enhances knowledge, guides research, and offers valuable resources to researchers, professionals, and policymakers alike.