## 2 A Systematic Literature Review
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Database** & **Language** & **Article** & **Review** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Conf.** \\ **Paper** \\ \end{tabular} & **Book** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Book** \\ **Chapter** \\ \end{tabular} & **Letter** & **Editorial** & **Patent** & \begin{tabular}{c} **PhD** \\ **Thesis** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **MSc** \\ **Thesis** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **BSc** \\ **Thesis** \\ \end{tabular} & **Total** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{WoS} & all & 22 & 9 & / & / & / & / & / & / & / & / & / & 31 \\ \cline{2-11}  & English & 21 & 9 & / & / & / & / & / & / & / & / & 30 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Dimensions} & all & 20 & 6 & / & / & 5 & / & / & 7 & / & / & / & 38 \\ \cline{2-11}  & English & 20 & 6 & / & / & 5 & / & / & 7 & / & / & / & 38 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Scopus} & all & 47 & 12 & 7 & 1 & 2 & 1 & / & / & / & / & / & 70 \\ \cline{2-11}  & English & 42 & 12 & 7 & 1 & 2 & 1 & / & / & / & / & / & 65 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{PubMed} & all & 19 & 7 & / & / & / & / & / & / & / & / & / & 26 \\ \cline{2-11}  & English & 19 & 7 & / & / & / & / & / & / & / & / & 26 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{OpenAlex} & all & 14 & 8 & / & / & / & 1 & / & / & / & / & / & 23 \\ \cline{2-11}  & English & 14 & 8 & / & / & / & 1 & / & / & / & / & / & 23 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Google Scholar} & all & 76 & 51 & / & 4 & 7 & / & 2 & / & 2 & 7 & 1 & 150 \\ \cline{2-11}  & English & 72 & 51 & / & 4 & 7 & / & 2 & / & 2 & 7 & 1 & 146 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \begin{tabular}{c} **Records identified** \\ **WoS** (n = 31) \\ **Dimensions** (n = 38) \\ **Scopus** (n = 70) \\ **PubMed** (n = 26) \\ **OpenAlex** (n = 23) \\ **Google Scholar** (n = 150) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Records identified** \\ **through other sources** \\ **(n = 0)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Records screened** \\ **EC-NENG** (n = 10) \\ **Deplicates removed** (n = 69) \\ \end{tabular} } & Records excluded \\ \cline{2-11}  & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Full-text review articles** \\ **assessed for eligibility** \\ **(n = 119)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Records** **excluded** \\ **EC1** (n = 9) \\ **EC2** (n = 58) \\ **EC3** (n = 1) \\ **EC4** (n = 20) \\ **EC5** (n = 6) \\ **EC6** (n = 1) \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Results of the initial search of each database individually. Figure 2: PRISMA flow diagram for retrieval of studies—for more information, please see Table S1. After extracting all relevant studies, the authors achieved substantial agreement ([PERSON]'s \(k\) = 0.81). However, given the disagreement between reviewers, we performed an objective review analysis, to reach a consensus between reviewers. Namely, given that the studies are extracted independently by two reviewers, additional reviewers who supervised the process gave their own opinions to decide whether a study should be included in the final list of selected studies. After reaching a consensus, we came to the conclusion that indeed 19 studies were relevant. The studies are recorded in an Excel file--please see Table S2, which contains a description of the articles' metadata, content data, and an additional qualitative description of the studies that concern the RQs. The extraction of raw (content) data followed coding for descriptive and inferential analysis. Namely, for answering the proposed RQs, we have used descriptive analysis but extended the analysis using inferential binomial and association statistics to introduce more scientific rigor to the analysis. The analysis of data is performed in SPSS v29.0.1.1, JASP v0.19.3, and Rstudio v.2025.05.1-513.