This research undertakes a systematic review of critical marketing literature in order to generate meaningful conclusions on the state of the existing body of critical marketing scholarship. The aim of the research is present a comprehensive synthesis of the current literature, revealing any systemic biases and limitations in the way critical marketing scholarship is produced. The PRISMA structure acted as a guiding framework to ensure a transparent and methodical process was followed. After all necessary exclusions were made, the sample revealed 54 eligible articles for the present study. Relevant data from each eligible article was extracted by the researcher after examination of the full-text article. Data regarding the year of publication, authorship characteristics, geographical location, paradigmatic stance, research method, and research topic was put into a centralised file for analysis. The aggregation of the data mined from each individual article revealed trends in the literature. The findings showed a general increase in the existence of critical marketing publication- articles accepted into the study spanned from the year 1994 to 2015. In contrast to the suggestion of previous literature, 44% of articles were produced by an individual author and thus co-authorship and collaboration are not an overwhelming characteristic of the literature studied. Similarly, only 13% of articles were identified as exhibiting evidence of international collaboration between authors. A total of 102 authors contributed to the articles in the study, 63% of these identifying as male and 37% as female. A further breakdown revealed that of the articles produced by a single author, 84% were male and 15% female. Over half of the articles were authored by academics working in the United Kingdom, and marketing theory was found to the most common topic of focus of the articles. The theoretical contribution of the study includes a heightened transparency of the characteristics behind the production of critical marketing literature, and the biases which exist. In terms of managerial implications, the study provides universities and peer-review journals alike with the impetus to improve equity amongst the opportunities of academic staff.