Online supplementary information for working paper titled 'Equitable Transitions Away from Fossil Fuels: A Systematic and Narrative Literature Review'

This online appendix presents the screening process for our systematic literature review featured in the Policy Research in International Services and Manufacturing (PRISM) working paper, "Equitable Transitions Away from Fossil Fuels: A Systematic and Narrative Literature Review." The full paper will be available on the PRISM website.

This appendix shows a detailed process of a systematic, keyword-based literature review utilizing the following search string:
(((Title) "Energy Transition" OR “phasing-out” OR “phasing down” OR transition) AND (equit OR just* OR fair* OR science OR "short-term" OR "long-term") AND ("fossil fuel*" OR "coal*" OR "oil*" OR "gas*") AND ("multilateral regime" OR "international cooperation" OR "global enabler*" OR "global enabling condition*"))**
The search was conducted at the title, abstract, and topic levels in the Web of Science in September 2024, covering literature published between 2010 and 2024, in the English language.

To ensure high scientific rigor, only peer-reviewed journal articles were included. Working papers, books, book chapters, book series, conference proceedings, patents, reports, and editorials were excluded.

After identifying the relevant papers, we implemented a systematic methodology to extract and synthesize information aligned with our research question. This process unfolded through several key steps, outlined in the accompanying Excel sheets.

• The first sheet contains the search string and is titled "Search String."
• The results are displayed in the "Search Result" sheet, which includes 734 papers.
• We initially identified 200 articles from the 734 based on their titles (sheet name: "By Title").
• After screening the abstracts, this number was reduced to 163 (sheet name: "By Abstract").
• We then evaluated relevance and novelty under the sheet titled "Relevant and Novel Comment."

First, we evaluated and filtered research articles based on their relevance to our research question, assigning each a score from 0 (least relevant) to 5 (most relevant). Second, we assessed the novelty of each paper, also scoring them from 0 to 5. We then concatenated the relevance and novelty scores. For example, a paper with a combined score of 55 represents the highest possible rating for both relevance and novelty, while a score of 00 indicates a paper that is neither relevant nor novel. Papers with a combined score of at least 33 were selected for further consideration.

Finally, after evaluating for relevance and novelty, we narrowed the selection down to 130 articles. These are displayed in the last Excel sheet, titled "Final Reviewed Papers."