You mention very little research: did you expect to find the four studies you identified? If so, these four articles may be the best available evidence, if not, your search may be faulty.

It all depends on the main message (i.e. 'more research is needed' vs 'overview of current literature')

There are really only 4 papers, 3 of which are written by me. It is a very much emerging area.

Ksenia Kirillova if the scope of the research area is very high, go for research article not review. I hope that will open new door.

First of all, if the few articles you mention are of good quality ( as per quality assessment protocols), you may present as systematic review. But if you do not find good quality, but are aware that the topic has potential, we you may present the evidence as socking review and highlight the future scope and rationale.

@ Ksenia Killova If the search produced only 4 articles 3/4 you're the author, then check your search strategy. Which search engines are you employing? Don't use only one search strategy. I would suggest you write a review protocol. Think of collaboration. Better write a narrative Review. Thanks

Some nice reviews, published in important journals and with many citations, analyze in detail even only 5 articles. But after using a systematic procedure to isolate them from a much larger starting pool

That is the problem - there is no larger pool...but can please you recommend a review that uses only 5 papers?

Dear Dr. Ksenia Kirillova, I am a humble follower of some of your works, particularly on aesthetics and phenomenology. Perhaps if a topic is truly emergent and not enough is said, it presents a genuine opportunity. May i humbly suggest that maybe one could consider reframing the paper as not a “review article,” but rather a reflexive account of the emergent topic? Imagine an autoethnographic inquiry mobilizing reflexivity and relevant theoretical logics to demonstrate the lack of literature and the emergent topic’s value would be better fit the bill. Just a thought!

Best regards,

—KS

Sounds interesting. I'm curious about this emerging topic and how the four studies were conducted around it. I assume none or little literature review can be found in each of the four articles? If so, maybe the expected review article can be written in a similar way of reviewing not much literature but explaining why it happens this way?

The search strategy would play an important role in determining the number of article you obtain for the review. Many times you may find interesting research which may not be published in the form of publication but in the form of dissertation or open grants. Proquest database can help you in searching for such literature.

https://www.proquest.com

If you don't find anything even then, that means that you are the expert and performing an 'unbiased' literature review from the available evidence seems fair if you incorporate the advantages and limitations of the current available studies.