The Arksey and O’Malley (2005) Framework remains the first generation framework for scoping review methodology but has been criticized for the limited support it offered for synthesis of data as it relates to the effectiveness of the scoping process. While the approach offered a framework to identify and map literature, there was no strong internal process support for critical synthesis, and often superficial or cursory conclusions occurred when synthesis (Daudt et al., 2013). In contrast, systematic reviews elucidate deeper, theoretical conclusions and are able to synthesize literature more effectively. The enhancements proposed by Levac et al. (2010) improved the original Arksey and O’Malley framework by increasing clarity around the process but fails to address the synthesis gap inherent in the original process.

Multiple approaches to scoping reviews including Levac et al. (2010) Enhancements and JBI Guidelines (Peters et al., 2015) also require considerable resources and time. Systematic review type searches and engaging stakeholders are both important processes in scoping reviews but are often exceedingly time consuming in fairly normal research environments. Time sensitive (Tricco et al., 2018) approaches to research make these types of scoping reviews so much less feasible on time. Continuous updating in Living Scoping Reviews (Iannizzi et al., 2023) also increases the burden imposed on researchers and the resources required to conduct a scoping review well. Even for relationships to biomedical fields, this is an excessive burden to impose as new studies appear daily. The application of this approach (i.e., Living Scoping Reviews) involves constantly added time and energy to ensure that the scoping review remains relevant.

Most of the scoping review methods, such as the Arksey and O’Malley (2005) Framework and Realist Review (Pawson et al., 2004), do not include critical appraisal, being specifically focused on mapping the breadth of the literature. This is often consistent with the fact that scoping reviews are exploratory and therefore appropriate; however, it enables the proliferation of low-quality studies to be included in the scoping review and bias the findings together (Peters et al., 2015). Of particular note, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Guidelines (Peters et al., 2015) do provide an option for critical appraisal which would strengthen the claims or conclusions. Nevertheless, there is no clear or standardized approach to appraisal in most of the review frameworks, and appraising and thus including only relevant literature of high quality can be quite a challenge, particularly in the social sciences where the quality of studies can differ in regard to validity and trustworthiness (Pham et al., 2014).

Approaches, such as Critical Realist Reviews (Pawson et al., 2004) and Critical Interpretive Synthesis (Dixon-Woods et al., 2006), engage more deeply in theoretical and contextual factors, but require considerable expertise in realist review or interpretative synthesis methodologies, and therefore, it is less likely that general researchers or those without training would apply this knowledge to scoping review processes. These approaches also limit the capacity for scoping reviews to be completed in fields where this approach is not widespread (Wong et al., 2013). For example, while the realist reviews have been very useful in evaluating the ongoing/policy for healthcare evaluations, their complexity has led them to not be as easily or frequently applied outside of specialist teams.

Frameworks such as Evidence Mapping (Katz et al., 2003) and Technology-Enhanced Scoping Reviews (O’Mara-Eves et al., 2015a) utilize visual methods (see heat maps) to present the findings of research reports/evidence. In addition to facilitating data use and providing accessibility, visual methods may mask complexity, which may not take into account the extent of unknowns, particularly in interdisciplinary research. For example, in environmental science, where multiple variables interact in biological, ecological, and social systems, visual methods may not effectively account for complex interactions between variables (Roux et al., 2006). Additionally, the technical skills needed to make the visualizations themselves creates a barrier to use, even among researchers, who may lack the data visualization expertise

Frameworks such as the Consultative Approach (Munn et al., 2018) and the Levac Enhancements to Scoping Reviews (Levac et al., 2010) propose to engage stakeholders throughout the scoping review process. While stakeholder engagement brings practical relevance to the review process, it can indeed add complexities in the scoping review process, such as in management of conflicting views between stakeholders, or the length of the scoping review timeframes. In addition, stakeholder engagement may enhance stakeholder perspectives to the detriment of academic rigour in the review process (Oliver et al., 2014). Stakeholders may, for example, seek specific studies that link to policy or engagement implications, and in so doing run the risk of making bias in the process.

Flexible frameworks, such as the PCC Framework (Peters et al., 2020) and PRISMA-ScR (Tricco et al., 2018) were designed to accommodate different contexts of research. However, inconsistent application across disciplines has resulted in various degrees of rigour. For example, although the PRISMAScR checklist is meant to be a more transparent reporting system, there is no guidance to the scoping review process itself, often leading to variability in conducting a scoping review. Since the application of scoping in research is a newer practice in areas such as education, the inconsistency across disciplines may have implications for less consistent approach, a different approach or understanding of scoping review methodology, or poor scoping quality purpose.

As “Rapid Scoping Reviews” (Garritty et al., 2021) are designed for speed and quick-turnaround, it is a perfect fit for a situation like a public health emergency. But part of being fast often involves a compromise between comprehensive and rigor. A good comparison is the rapid reviews done at the start of the pandemic, many of which excluded gray literature, and restricted their searches to a limited number of databases to represent the literature accurately (Haby et al., 2016). Although rapid scoping reviews provide timely knowledge, they indeed may miss significant studies, which in fact adds strength to the breadth and depth of the reviews.

“Cross-disciplinary Scoping Reviews” (Munn et al., 2018) refer to reviews that try to come together across fields within a broad topic to discuss some complex issues. While trying to synthesise the information across the landscape might offer some level of the holistic view, maintaining coherence remains challenging due to the number of different disciplines the material is taken from. A reality of multi-disciplinary scoping reviews involves conflicting terminology, methodology and epistemological stances. For example, in studies involving sustainability, the ecological paradigm may conflict with social paradigm, and in both situations the way forward is interaction/negotiation if friends, but often other issues appear during cross disciplinary synthesis to argue that merging/discussing is mutually exclusive (Berkes et al., 2008).

Most scoping reviews simply measure and map the literature without determining the quality of included studies. Including a critical appraisal step in scoping reviews could enhance the rigor of research reviews. For example, organizations such as Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Guidelines (Peters et al., 2015), and PRISMA-ScR (Tricco et al., 2018) suggest optional appraisal process to weed out low-quality studies, and employing this across reviews would ensure that findings are based on high quality, relevant studies. Future contributions to scoping reviews should still be able to provide comprehensive mapping of the literature while including studies that are more methodologically rigorous to improve the trustworthiness of scoping reviews conclusions.

Recent advancements in artificial intelligence and machine learning have the potential to improve the efficiency of scoping reviews. For example, Technology-Enhanced Scoping Reviews (O’Mara-Eves et al., 2015a) have been proposed to utilize AI in automated screening of literature and return data extraction to researchers, which in turn reduces the researchers’/examiners’ workload. Hence, although AI automation tools may be considered for increased efficiency and productivity of scoping reviews, it is important to remind readers and future scoping review researchers regarding the limitations of available AI, machine learning, or automated tools, especially for complex qualitative data synthesis and contextual understanding of findings to reproduce the depth, thickness, or accuracy of the reviews. Researchers should broaden their incorporation of these technological approaches for larger scale data management and synthesis of qualitative method studies, while remaining cognizant of specific limitations (i.e., limited qualitative synthesis capabilities).

A significant limitation in current methods for conducting scoping reviews is the absence of a standardized synthesis framework for the data. Frameworks for scoping reviews outlined by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) and later modified by Levac et al. (2010) do not provide extensive guidance on developing a synthesis of data. To address this issue, a standardized synthesis framework should be developed that directs researchers in mapping disparate data while allowing the synthesis of a more in-depth and analytical review. This would help narrow the gap between scoping reviews and systematic reviews by more effectively highlighting knowledge gaps, study progression or trends, and the quality of evidence being reviewed.

Living reviews, Living Systematic Reviews (Elliott et al., 2017) are an adaptable approach for keeping the review to date, especially in areas where the evidence base is rapidly evolving over time like healthcare and technology. The adaptation of living systematic reviews to living scoping reviews is a newer approach; however, it is still limited in its application due to the resources required to continuously update a review. To increase broader use of living scoping reviews, automation tools and effective data-tracking systems could augment the living reviews and quickly update the review to keep it current. Funding agencies and organizations could consider the allocation of their resources towards supporting living reviews, particularly in areas of research with rapidly changing evidence bases.

Engaging stakeholders through the process of adaptation ensures that the scoping review is relevant in real-world settings. Both the traditional and Consultative Approach frameworks (Munn et al., 2018) highlight the impact of involving stakeholders, with the caveat that it is occasionally cumbersome and time consuming and finding a balance can be challenging to orchestrate. More formal or efficient models, pre-existing stakeholder panels or consultations via video conference could streamline this approach without compromising stakeholder engagement. However, it is pertinent to recognize that even these approaches require vigorous management skills to mediate different opinions or balance perspectives with scientific reliability. Guidelines should be developed to manage stakeholder contributions to conflict of interest and integrity of the review process.

There is room for enhancement in scoping reviews’ communication tools, especially with the usage of visual aids to offer the findings in meaningful ways to non-academic audiences. Examples of such techniques, including Evidence Mapping (Katz et al., 2003) and Data Visualizations in Scoping Reviews (Peters et al., 2020), have demonstrated how visual tools, such as heat maps and network diagrams, can communicate trends and gaps in the field effectively. Future modes are encouraged to adopt such visualizing tools, with attention to ensuring that they are not oversimplifying complex relationships. Visual tools, when utilized intentionally, can act as a bridge between academic literature and on-the-ground policy implementation by articulating actionable insights.

Hybrid models that synthesize systematic and scoping review approaches (e.g., Systematic Search and Synthesis Scoping Reviews: Levac et al., 2010; Munn et al., 2018) have opportunities ahead. Given the academic rigour of a systematic review such as search protocols and critical appraisal, conducting reviews in a systematic manner, allows for the flexibility of scoping review designs. While hybrid models offer promising opportunities, it must contend with a model that balances comprehensiveness with the exploratory aspects of scoping reviews, namely that hybrid approaches must regard each methodology's goals. Proposing hybrid models can offer methodological robustness, while still allowing for the qualities of flexibility needed to conceptualize broad research questions.

Scoping Reviews in cross discipline design often grapple with navigating various methodologies and epistemologies, Interdisciplinary Scoping Reviews (Munn et al., 2018) would welcome deeper collaboration, to ensure synthesis and interpretation is achieved across disciplines the evidence scoping review is based across multiple fields. Throughout the process of synthesis, clear guidelines would support collaboration across distinct terminologies, research methodologies, and findings coded into meaningful conclusions. This is especially value in sustainability science to view environmental, social, economic and policy perspective.

The first step involves defining broad and strategic research questions developed during collaborative engagement with both academic and non-academic stakeholders, including policymakers and practitioners. While partnerships with stakeholders increase the chances of producing findings relevant to practice, the SUSHIJA Framework acknowledges that working in teams can be difficult for all parties when opinions and perceptions are diverse. The Framework does provide suggestions for balancing equity between stakeholder views and achieving increased input from stakeholders; thus, maintaining both practical relevance and methodological rigor.

To operationalize this engagement in a scalable and cost-efficient manner, we propose a structured stakeholder model adapted from the NIHR INVOLVE framework (National Institute for Health and Care Research, n.d.). This model integrates: Phased virtual consultations to reduce logistical burden while ensuring timely feedback; Predefined decision rules to guide inclusive and equitable decision-making; Prioritization matrices that assist researchers in translating stakeholder input into practical review directions. These tools collectively enable researchers to embed stakeholder involvement without overwhelming resources. Moreover, the model mandates conflict-of-interest disclosure protocols to address concerns about bias and influence (Oliver et al., 2014). Such procedural safeguards ensure that stakeholder contributions enhance the methodological integrity of the scoping review. This approach also addresses stakeholder involvement (Munn et al., 2018). It maximizes the potential for findings to be practical (Levac et al., 2010). It further incorporates strategies that account for multiple viewpoints.

The SUSHIJA Framework utilized a combined strategy of systematic and exploratory searches (two-tiered searching). The first search consists of systematic searching of initially defined databases, then undertaking an exploratory search for more emergent and gray literature. In order to maximize participant efficiency, the combination will utilize technology and Artificial Intelligence (AI) to assist with the heavy lifting; however, the Framework may control and warrant the use of AI. For certain activities, AI may ignore subtle and qualitative data and the Framework advises review and consideration from a human perspective. It addresses the need to balance methodological rigor with typological flexibility (Levac et al., 2010). It also seeks to maximize efficiency (O’Mara-Eves et al., 2015a) while maintaining covert supervision of AI to prevent oversimplification.

SUSHIJA includes a critical appraisal step using standardized appraisal and visualization tools, such as the JBI Critical Appraisal Tools. The inclusion of a study should not be caused only by the quality of a study, but rather the lowest quality studies will be weighted and a comparative synthesis will occur. This allows conclusions taken from high quality evidence without excluding lower quality studies from the inclusivity of other potential balanced studies. Statements are made with explicit ways to bring lower quality studies into synthesis.

The SUSHIJA Framework adopts a tiered critical appraisal strategy​ to address the heterogeneity of included literature​ that would span​ across empirical studies, conceptual papers, and theoretical commentaries. Empirical studies are evaluated ​by using the appropriate JBI Critical Appraisal Checklists (Peters et al., 2015), while non-empirical works are assessed ​by using a structured rubric based on conceptual clarity, theoretical contribution, and coherence (Dixon-Woods et al., 2006). Each study is categorized into quality tiers (e.g., high, moderate, low) and documented in a quality matrix. Rather than excluding studies, SUSHIJA applies a sensitivity-aware synthesis. High-tier studies are prioritized during thematic development, while lower-tier studies are used to enrich context but are flagged to prevent undue influence. Additionally, we annotate findings to indicate how conclusions may shift under different quality thresholds​ to offer a transparent and reflexive approach that supports analytical rigor and practical use by applied researchers. It addresses the need for rigorous quality appraisal (Peters et al., 2015). It ensures comprehensiveness through inclusive methods (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). It also provides explicit guidance on how to integrate lower-quality studies into synthesis.

Data charting includes both quantitative and qualitative data charting with an emphasis on higher visual tools of the evidence map, thematic heat map, and network diagram as visualizations, thus maintaining an emphasis of important emerging finding without compromising clarity. While increasing communication of complex relationships are communicated through these accounting systems, the framework provides recommendations in circles of caution and avoiding oversimplifying complex processes through visual representations. AI tools can assist in quick automated visualization of evaluating miles, but researchers must be cautious to avoid artful visualizations that could be misleading. This approach addresses the need to simplify communication and transfer of findings for students (Peters et al., 2020). It draws on AI credentials to improve efficiency (O’Mara-Eves et al., 2015a). It also directly confronts the challenge of handling oversimplification in complex data (Katz et al., 2003).

SUSHIJA introduces the mapping of multiple studies into thematically categorized sections for findings. Thematic findings derived from multiple studies are synthesized through qualitative analysis by utilizing themed software mapping and thought-reviewed studies. These combined themes support the development of an organizing conceptual framework, refined through iterative stakeholder feedback and strategized validation. This process further incorporates ties from community-based integration designs to address barriers at the management level within the situatedness of studies (Levac et al., 2010). The organizational framework allows a working combined synthesis, iterative refinements of feedback from potential construction connections throughout the premise of either dynamic instability or situations evolving.

Interdisciplinary synthesis involves challenges such as conflicting terminologies, divergent epistemologies and methodological fragmentation. To mitigate these, the SUSHIJA Framework introduces three strategies. First, shared terminology glossaries establish a common interpretive language across disciplines (Jahn et al., 2012). Second, role-based team structures​ comprising disciplinary leads and synthesis coordinators​ clarify responsibilities while respecting methodological diversity (Levac et al., 2010). Third, modular synthesis strategies allow qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method streams to be integrated in parallel, maintaining coherence without enforcing convergence (Gough et al., 2012; Greenhalgh et al., 2005). Together, these innovations reduce coordination burdens and support rigorous interdisciplinary integration. This approach addresses the need to simplify rigorous synthesis of findings (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). It also encourages iterative refinement through stakeholder validation (Levac et al., 2010).

To facilitate active and timely developments in review updates, the SUSHIJA Framework allows us to create a living review component. Through automated tools, databases will continuously monitor relevant information with the aim of incorporating new evidence as it becomes available. Although a living review means that our work has a dynamic component and authorship may later accrue sufficient resources to manage ongoing updates, SUSHIJA acknowledges the required long-term investment of resources to continue living reviews. Furthermore, the authors of SUSHIJA provide notes to inform and prepare regimes to find sustainable funding and continued integrated updates to reviews eventually; as living review would still require ongoing maintenance.

To ensure realistic implementation of the living review component, the SUSHIJA Framework emphasizes scalability and sustainability. ​We recognize the challenges associated with technical complexity and resource demands. To address this, we recommend the use of open-access tools such as ASReview, Zotero and GitHub Actions which support literature tracking, data management and workflow automation with minimal training requirements. For long-term sustainability, we propose flexible update cycles​ such as quarterly or semi-annual updates​ instead of continuous real-time updates. This strategy allows research teams to balance methodological rigor with available personnel, time and funding resources​. This approach addresses the need for a living, updated process in fast-moving fields (Elliott et al., 2017). It delegates potential update tasks to automated tools to extend efficiency (Garritty et al., 2021). It also notes the importance of sustaining incentives across all phases of participation.

In the final step, we focus on products that are rigorous enough for an academic community but utilizing also active and pragmatic for working policy and practical summaries, executive and policy briefs, and engaging types of interactive visualisation options as ways to move findings for stakeholders. Stakeholders, including decision-makers and focus partners, will continually shape and inform how evidence and findings will be reported and communicated to be usable and engaging in naturalistic settings, while the governing structure continues to protect rigor for science. This approach addresses the enhancement of knowledge translation and accessibility (Munn et al., 2018). It improves the communication and reporting of findings through visual modes (Peters et al., 2020). It also maintains governance safeguards to balance stakeholder influence with scientific integrity.

To show how SUSHIJA can be used, we present a comparison of its aspects with a current published scoping review on predictive analytics in healthcare social work (Kumar & Suthar, 2024). This detailed examination shows that SUSHIJA improves traditional review processes by focusing on rigor, getting all voices involved and making technology part of the process.

Table 3 shows that the original study relied on the Arksey and O’Malley approach while in SUSHIJA we created new steps such as asking stakeholders what questions to address, using evidence from online sources and from the stakeholders and testing AI tools for pre-screening articles. Other updates include flexible data charting, a levelled method of study evaluation and connecting with living review systems for ongoing changes. Table 3 presents a retrospective alignment between each SUSHIJA phase and the steps followed in our previous review (Kumar & Suthar, 2024). This mapping provides a transparent view of how SUSHIJA enhances methodological rigor, enables inclusive stakeholder engagement, and strengthens synthesis quality.

SUSHIJA goes beyond the old review’s narratives by providing flow diagrams, creating infographics and policy briefs with others. Using these approaches supports access, repeatability and actionable outcomes. The following table demonstrate that SUSHIJA is a workable tool for enhanced review protocols and can improve complex syntheses.

The SUSHIJA Framework offers a range of innovations that have the potential to help overcome the difficulties researchers face. However, it is important to consider potential challenges in its application. First, while the Framework advances scoping review rigor potential, the intention of using research teams that include using AI tools, the critical appraisal protocol and continuous updating etc., and therefore may be better suited to research teams that are institutionally or well-funded. Individual smaller research teams, or projects that are under-resourced, may find it arduous to deploy and use the Framework while missing many of its core components. Options for scaling the framework could be devised to allow research teams to use the Framework that best fits their use of resources.

In general, using the Framework offers benefits to improving the rigor scoping reviews, but represents additional complexity. The multiple steps in scoping reviews, critical appraisal and continuous updating introduces complexity and perhaps a steep learning curve, for researcher teams that have not engaged in these tools and methodologies of exigence. Developing training resources and user-friendly platforms may provide an additional way to assist research teams in using the Framework and apply this advance methodology in practice.

The SUSHIJA Framework presents a new paradigm by addressing two primary limitations of traditional scoping methodologies. That is, encompassing aspects of a traditional systematic review, including critical appraisal and structured synthesis, the SUSHIJA framework balances both depth and breadth of evidence synthesis. The inclusion of stakeholder engagement in the early phases, use of AI-driven automation tools, and ongoing updating process allows a scoping review to be both full and current and provide relevant practice implications. There are noteworthy innovations in the SUSHIJA framework, such as one search strategy, critical appraisal of studies without exclusion, and linked visual tools of data synthesis, which contribute to the evolution of the field. The challenges of the resources/continuance of living reviews, and AI inability to process qualitative data, require additional refinement and focus. Importantly, the flexibility of the SUSHIJA framework, particularly its ability to scale to different resource settings, will be critical in realizing wider use across different research settings. Thus, the SUSHIJIA Framework offers a progressive and flexible and long-term methodological approach to scoping reviews. In academic and non-academic contexts, as research evolves, SUSHIJA could offer a framework to ensure that scoping reviews remain relevant, credible, and useful to stakeholders. Future research could examine the use of SUSHIJA in other scholarly disciplines and test the usability or functionality of the framework. This paper provides a conceptual foundation and illustrative alignment for SUSHIJA. However, future studies are needed to validate its application across domains and assess its comparative performance against other frameworks.