You are presented with multiple paper abstracts, alongside the associated literature review and chapter titles. Given the provided information, you are going to do a literature review. Please generate a coherent literature review that synthesizes the content, draws connections between different works, highlights major findings, and identifies any gaps in the existing research.

Literature Review Title: A Systematic Literature Review about the impact of Artificial Intelligence on Autonomous Vehicle Safety 
Chapter Title:  II. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 
1. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB001):  The convergence of mobile communications and distributed networked computing has provided the foundation for the development of a new channel of electronic business: mobile business. Research into mobile business has begun to grow significantly over the last five years to the point where we now see dedicated journals and conferences focusing on this topic. This paper provides an assessment of the state of mobile business research. Drawing on over 230 research papers from key research outlets, we describe the emergence of this research area and characterize its current status. We also provide a critique of current research and some recommendations for future research into mobile business. 
2. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB002):  BACKGROUND: A software engineering systematic map is a defined method to build a classification scheme and structure a software engineering field of interest. The analysis of results focuses on frequencies of publications for categories within the scheme. Thereby, the coverage of the research field can be determined. Different facets of the scheme can also be combined to answer more specific research questions. ::: ::: OBJECTIVE: We describe how to conduct a systematic mapping study in software engineering and provide guidelines. We also compare systematic maps and systematic reviews to clarify how to chose between them. This comparison leads to a set of guidelines for systematic maps. ::: ::: METHOD: We have defined a systematic mapping process and applied it to complete a systematic mapping study. Furthermore, we compare systematic maps with systematic reviews by systematically analyzing existing systematic reviews. ::: ::: RESULTS: We describe a process for software engineering systematic mapping studies and compare it to systematic reviews. Based on this, guidelines for conducting systematic maps are defined. ::: ::: CONCLUSIONS: Systematic maps and reviews are different in terms of goals, breadth, validity issues and implications. Thus, they should be used complementarily and require different methods (e.g., for analysis). 
3. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB003):  Examining action research publications in leading Information Systems journals as a particular genre of research communication, we develop the notion of style composition to understand how authors structure their arguments for a research contribution. We define style composition as the activity through which authors select, emphasize, and present elements of their research to establish premises, develop inferences, and present contributions in publications. Drawing on this general notion, we identify a set of styles that is characteristic of how IS action researchers compose their argument. Premise styles relate to the dual goals of action research through practical or theoretical positioning of the argument; inference styles combine insights from the problem-solving and the research cycles through inductive or deductive reasoning; and contribution styles focus on different types of contributions--experience report, field study, theoretical development, problemsolving method, and research method. Based on the considered sample, we analyze the styles adopted in selected publications and show that authors have favored certain styles while leaving others underexplored; further, we reveal important strengths and weaknesses in the composition of styles within the IS discipline. Based on these insights, we discuss how action research practices and writing can be improved, as well as how to further develop style compositions to support the publication of engaged scholarship research. 
4. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB004):  In this editorial, the co-editors-in-chief undertake a number of tasks related to International Journal of Management Reviews (IJMR). They begin by reviewing the objectives set out by Macpherson and Jones in their 2010 editorial (IJMR, 12, pp. 107–113). The benefits of publishing in IJMR for scholars at various stages of their careers are then discussed. The section outlining the progress of IJMR over the last four years sets out the main reasons why so many papers are desk rejected by the co-editors. The main criteria for writing an analytical literature review of the type that the editors aspire to publish in the Journal are then discussed. The objectives are not simply to reduce the number of desk rejects, but also to encourage authors to be more ambitious and innovative in their approaches to reviews of the literature.

Literature Review:
This study was performed using the systematic literature review (SLR) method. The reasons supporting the SLR use are: (1) its established tradition as a tool to understand state-of-theart research in technology-related fields BIB002 ; (2) it helps to understand existing studies and supports readers in identifying new directions in the research field BIB005 ; and (3) it helps to create a foundation for advancing knowledge BIB001 . The protocol used ( Figure 1 ) was based on the tasks suggested by  BIB003 for defining the research questions, identification of search string, source selection, study selection criteria, and data mapping. Also, the protocol followed the recommendations of  ,  , BIB001 and BIB004 for extracting, analyzing, interpreting and reporting the literature-based findings.