Context Globally, forest landscapes are rapidly transforming, with the role of institutions as mediators in their use and management constantly appearing in the literature. However, global comparative reviews to enhance comprehension of how forest management institutions (FMIs) are conceptualized, and the varying determinants of compliance, are lacking. And so too, is there knowledge fragmentation on the methodological approaches which have and should be prioritized in the new research agenda on FMIs. Objectives We review the regional variations in the conceptualization of FMIs, analyze the determinants of compliance with FMIs, and assess the methodological gaps applied in the study of FMIs. Methods A systematic review of 197 empirically conducted studies (491 cases) on FMIs was performed, including a directed content analysis. Results First, FMIs literature is growing; multi-case and multi-country studies characterize Europe/North America, Africa and Latin America, over Asia. Second, the structure-process conceptualization of FMIs predominates in Asia and Africa. Third, global south regions report high cases of compliance with informal FMIs, while non-compliance was registered for Europe/North America in the formal domain. Finally, mixed-methods approaches have been least employed in the studies so far; while the use of only qualitative methods increased over time, the adoption of only quantitative approaches witnessed a decrease. Conclusion Future research should empirically ground informality in the institutional set-up of Australia while also valorizing mixed-methods research globally. Crucially, future research should consider multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches to explore the actor and power dimensions of forest management institutions.