Reflexivity in Systematic Literature Reviews: The Philosophical and Methodological Foundations of Bibliometric Evaluation

Bibliometric systematic literature reviews (bibliometric SLRs) have become popular for evaluating knowledge structures in business and management research, yet their rapid institutionalisation has outpaced critical reflection on the philosophical assumptions that underpin them. Despite the proliferation of protocol-driven frameworks, bibliometric SLRs continue to be treated as neutral technical procedures, obscuring the epistemological, ontological, axiological, and temporal commitments embedded in citation practices, clustering algorithms, and database infrastructures. This paper argues that such unexamined assumptions systematically shape what becomes visible, legitimate, and citable within business and management scholarship, reinforcing dominant paradigms while marginalising heterodox and Global South perspectives. To address this blind spot, the paper advances the concept of reflexive bibliometric practice and demonstrates its necessity through an empirical mapping of more than 7800 Scopus-indexed bibliometric SLRs published between 1978 and 2025. The analysis shows that bibliometric tools do not only measure influence; they can contribute to constructing perceived intellectual boundaries. The paper presents a novel philosophical framework that embeds reflexivity into each stage of review design, reveals how bibliometric practices reproduce structural distortions, and offers actionable guidance for authors, reviewers, editors, and research-governance bodies. By repositioning bibliometric SLRs as interpretive and value-laden knowledge practices, the paper provides a timely intervention that strengthens the methodological foundations of business and management research.