Systematic review
This is a methodology for meta-analysis that only got popular recently, like around 2018.
In hindsight, it's weird that we didn't have it from the beginning. How did anyone do science before? Seems like dumb luck science even got started. Guess actually it was dumb luck; science didn't start for the ~5,000 years after writing, so yeah, in alternate possible worlds we might even now be in the Post-Late-Middle Ages!
It's so important to preserve a good understanding of what makes science work, to carry us through an eventual global collapse… but I digress.
Systematic review is often described with five phases: "Search, Dedupe, Screen, Extract, Report."
Depending on your needs, this process may become cyclic, i.e. you loop back to Search and start again. That doesn't apply to writing a grad paper (since you write it once and forget it), but does apply if you are responsible for developing a line of MRI machines.
There's also rapid review, which drops some parts of the process in favour of efficency. There's even interactive rapid review (ebib:ricoGuidelinesConductingInteractive2020) which started in evidence-based software engineering (EBSE), likenable to agile development.