**2. Methods**

Conceptualisation and reflection on talent managemen<sup>t</sup> and EB concepts lead to the question that guides this research: Which dimensions of talent managemen<sup>t</sup> are reflected in the EB concept?

The proliferation of academic studies and the speed of concepts evolution in recent years demand a systemic approach to access and aggregate these research results to grasp a coherent and integrated sum of investigation results. This supports the choice of a systematic literature revision (SLR) according to the protocol currently accepted by the scientific community.

Bryman [19] lists the following steps to perform an SLR: (a) defining the revision goal and scope; (b) researching studies relevant to the revision scope and aim; (c) analysing and subsequently summarising the results of each study.

We believe that three specific goals operationalise the investigative question mentioned above: (1) analysing the most important studies that link the two concepts, EB and TM, in the last decade; (2) identifying the EB dimensions introduced in those studies; (3) comparing dimensions that emerge from our research with the TM model based on a macro-contingent approach presented in 2019, which includes both macro and micro levels.

#### *2.1. Strategy and Research Sources*

This research follows the guiding lines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) protocol, a development regarding the QUOROM protocol [20] whose aim is to guarantee that systematic revisions are conducted in a complete, clear, and replicable way [21]. In August 2009, the PRISMA protocol introduced the PRISMA Statement [20] that clarified several phases of this type of research (see Figure 3). All the mentioned phases were accurately followed in our research, as was a checklist whose aim is the identification of all the items to be included in this type of literature revision. These items were an essential guide to investigators and formed a road map of the present study.

In the present study, data were collected using the B-On website. B-On is a research tool for scientific data that provides simultaneous research in several data resources managed by the Portuguese Consortium B-On, working as a browser that helps to consult the most reputable databases and those with higher impact on the academic and scientific communities. We chose Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus as sources to the most relevant editors—Emerald, Wiley, Elsevier, MDPI, or Sage. The scope and reach of the selected sources allowed us to find credible results and suitable data concerning the proposed systematic revision.

**Figure 3.** PRISMA protocol phases. #, identify each stage that should be followed by researchers. Source: The Prisma Statement, Moher et al. (2009) [20].

#### *2.2. Studies Eligibility Criteria for Analysis*

Eligibility criteria aim to match the data collection with really relevant studies concerning the goals of this SLR. In order to do so, the following five criteria were selected:


#### *2.3. Data Collection*

Data collection was formally performed on January 2021 and encompassed the time period ranging from 2010 to 2020. It was conducted using a virtual private network (VPN) connection to the University of Évora. Keywords and data filters were applied to WoS and Scopus. Afterwards, these eligibility criteria were used to select the final corpus used in this research, excluding non-proper articles, articles in languages other than English, and repetitions found in both databases.

The bibliometric analysis was applied to the final selection (see Figure 4)—60 articles fulfilling the previously mentioned eligibility criteria. In total, 63 articles were excluded due to repetition, showing us that WoS and Scopus clearly display similar exigence and acceptance levels and are the most widespread and trusted databases within the scientific community in the study.

**Figure 4.** Articles choice process schematics. Adapted from PRISMA Statement, Moher et al. (2009) [20]. Developed by the authors. \* Directly from authors.

#### *2.4. Collected Data Analysis*

The collected data were submitted to two distinctive analyses, as carried out lately for authors on RSL analyses [22]. This method seems to be adequate to achieve relevant conclusions in this kind of research. First, a bibliometric analysis was conducted; its metric results were analysed and interpreted—publication year, sources, quotation number, or countries where research in this study was performed. Second, a content analysis was performed; as intended, the aim was to identify the dimension of EB focused on studies that link EB to TM so that we could conclude about the TM dimensions that reflected EB.

#### **3. Results and Discussion**

#### *3.1. Publication Date*

During the first half of the decade in the study, only around 2 articles per year were published (see Figure 5). From 2015 onwards, an annual growth of publications concerning the subject becomes clear, except in 2019. The most prolific year for publications concerning the connection between EB and talent managemen<sup>t</sup> was 2020—17 articles. Overall, 17% of the scientific production analysed is from 2016 to 2020. Comparing 2018 and 2020 it is clear that the interest in the subject has unequivocally risen in the last 3 years, matching the perception of the growing importance of the subject in the academic arena; dealings of the organisational world have penetrated scientific discussion.

**Figure 5.** Publication date. Source: WoS and Scopus (27 January 2021).

#### *3.2. Sources: Editors and Scientific Journals*

Concerning sources, editors were analysed first (see Table 1). There are 18 editors in general, but Emerald Group Publishing has a clear advantage, accounting for 30 of the total 60. In other words, one editor accounts for 50% of the total sources, and none other is even remotely close. In fact, Emerald Group Publishing alone reveals the same number of published articles as all the other 17 editors combined; this alone underlines the weight of this editorial group on scientific publications in general.


**Table 1.** Editors. Source: WoS and Scopus (27 January 2021).

Then, the selected articles published in scientific journals were analysed (see Figure 5). From a total of 47 journals, the *International Journal of Organisational Analysis* (Int J Organ Anal) stands out, with 4 published articles. Not surprisingly, this journal is part of the aforementioned Emerald Group Publishing. Based in the United Kingdom, the journal shows an H index of 25 and in 2018 it was already a Q2 journal. Next come two journals with 3 published articles: *Thunderbird International Business Review*, from Wiley, based in the United States, with a Q1 classification in business and international managemen<sup>t</sup> in 2018 although falling to Q2 in 2020; and *International Journal of Organisational Analysis*, from the Emerald Group Publishing, based in the United Kingdom, with a classification between Q3 e Q2 (depending on the subject area). Again, the weight of the Emerald group is quite

evident. The remaining journals reveal mainly just 1 published article, and they are all indexed to Web of Science and/or Scopus, as defined by the chosen criteria (see Figure 6).

**Figure 6.** Scientific journals. Source: WoS and Scopus (27 January 2021).
