The article "Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review" by Jane Webster and Richard T. Watson discusses the importance of literature reviews in advancing knowledge and theory in the field of Information Systems (IS). The authors highlight the lack of theoretical progress in IS compared to other management fields, which is partly due to the field's youth and the complexity of interdisciplinary research. They emphasize that literature reviews are crucial for strengthening the field and provide guidelines for writing effective reviews. Key points include: 1. **Type of Authors and Topics**: Scholars who have made substantial progress in their research or have completed a literature review before embarking on a project are well-positioned to write reviews. Reviews can address mature topics with existing research or emerging issues with potential theoretical foundations. 2. **Writing a Review Article**: The introduction should motivate the topic, define key variables, and articulate contributions. The review should cover relevant literature comprehensively, focusing on concepts rather than author-centric summaries. A structured approach to identifying sources is recommended, including leading journals, conference proceedings, and citation databases. 3. **Structuring the Review**: The review should be concept-centric, using a concept matrix to organize and synthesize literature. Tables and figures can enhance communication of findings and relationships. 4. **Tone and Tense**: The review should constructively inform readers, avoiding overly critical tones. The present tense is generally preferred for concepts, while the past tense is used for attributing statements to individuals. 5. **Theoretical Development**: Reviews should identify knowledge gaps and motivate future research. This often involves developing conceptual models with supporting propositions, which can be derived from variance or process theories. Justifications for propositions should come from theoretical explanations, past empirical findings, and practice or experience. 6. **Evaluation and Revision**: Evaluating the quality of a theory is challenging, but feedback from colleagues can be valuable. The revision process for reviews is longer and more detailed, requiring a plan to address reviewer concerns. The authors conclude by emphasizing the importance of high-quality reviews in advancing the field and encourage scholars to contribute to *MISQ Review* to move the field forward.The article "Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review" by Jane Webster and Richard T. Watson discusses the importance of literature reviews in advancing knowledge and theory in the field of Information Systems (IS). The authors highlight the lack of theoretical progress in IS compared to other management fields, which is partly due to the field's youth and the complexity of interdisciplinary research. They emphasize that literature reviews are crucial for strengthening the field and provide guidelines for writing effective reviews. Key points include: 1. **Type of Authors and Topics**: Scholars who have made substantial progress in their research or have completed a literature review before embarking on a project are well-positioned to write reviews. Reviews can address mature topics with existing research or emerging issues with potential theoretical foundations. 2. **Writing a Review Article**: The introduction should motivate the topic, define key variables, and articulate contributions. The review should cover relevant literature comprehensively, focusing on concepts rather than author-centric summaries. A structured approach to identifying sources is recommended, including leading journals, conference proceedings, and citation databases. 3. **Structuring the Review**: The review should be concept-centric, using a concept matrix to organize and synthesize literature. Tables and figures can enhance communication of findings and relationships. 4. **Tone and Tense**: The review should constructively inform readers, avoiding overly critical tones. The present tense is generally preferred for concepts, while the past tense is used for attributing statements to individuals. 5. **Theoretical Development**: Reviews should identify knowledge gaps and motivate future research. This often involves developing conceptual models with supporting propositions, which can be derived from variance or process theories. Justifications for propositions should come from theoretical explanations, past empirical findings, and practice or experience. 6. **Evaluation and Revision**: Evaluating the quality of a theory is challenging, but feedback from colleagues can be valuable. The revision process for reviews is longer and more detailed, requiring a plan to address reviewer concerns. The authors conclude by emphasizing the importance of high-quality reviews in advancing the field and encourage scholars to contribute to *MISQ Review* to move the field forward.