This systematic literature review analyses factors associated with research literacy among university students based on 50 studies published between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2025. Following PRISMA guidelines, studies were selected from Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct databases. The findings reveal research literacy as a multidimensional competency operating through three interconnected dimensions — personal (63%), pedagogical (23%) and institutional (14%), computed over the 35 studies with extractable quantitative data —. Personal factors showed the strongest statistical associations, with information literacy (d = 0.82) and research self-efficacy (d = 0.76) yielding the largest pooled effect sizes. Pedagogical factors, though less represented, were associated with the largest effect sizes, particularly library-faculty collaboration (d = 0.94) and structured instruction (d = 0.78). Institutional factors, including frameworks and technological resources, were consistently associated with larger estimates for personal and pedagogical variables, a pattern compatible with — but not demonstrative of — an amplifying role. The review identified a paradigmatic shift from traditional information literacy toward critical artificial intelligence literacy, with a 410% growth in AI-related studies between 2023–2025. Bibliometric analysis revealed geographical concentration in Europe and Asia (50%), highlighting underrepresentation of Global South perspectives. Methodological limitations include predominance of correlational designs (36%) and scarcity of longitudinal studies (12%). The study proposes an explanatory framework in which institutional conditions operate as contextual antecedents that shape instructional opportunity, which in turn relates to individual research competence through research self-efficacy, with discipline, academic stage and prior digital competence acting as moderators; four testable propositions are derived from it. Because the evidence base is predominantly correlational, these findings should be read as associations rather than causal effects; they provide an evidence-informed basis for designing educational strategies intended to foster critical thinking, information evaluation, and ethical research practices in contemporary higher education contexts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Morales et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: