社会科学范围审查检索实践:范围审查。

IF 5 2区 生物学 Q1 MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY Research Synthesis Methods Pub Date : 2024-08-12 DOI:10.1002/jrsm.1742
Judith Logan, Jenaya Webb, Nalini K. Singh, Nailisa Tanner, Kathryn Barrett, Margaret Wall, Benjamin Walsh, Ana Patricia Ayala
{"title":"社会科学范围审查检索实践:范围审查。","authors":"Judith Logan,&nbsp;Jenaya Webb,&nbsp;Nalini K. Singh,&nbsp;Nailisa Tanner,&nbsp;Kathryn Barrett,&nbsp;Margaret Wall,&nbsp;Benjamin Walsh,&nbsp;Ana Patricia Ayala","doi":"10.1002/jrsm.1742","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>A thorough literature search is a key feature of scoping reviews. We investigated the search practices used by social science researchers as reported in their scoping reviews. We collected scoping reviews published between 2015 and 2021 from Social Science Citation Index. In the 2484 included studies, we observed a 58% average annual increase in published reviews, primarily from clinical and applied social science disciplines. Bibliographic databases comprised most of the information sources in the primary search strategy (<i>n</i> = 9565, 75%), although reporting practices varied. Most scoping reviews (<i>n</i> = 1805, 73%) included at least one supplementary search strategy. A minority of studies (<i>n</i> = 713, 29%) acknowledged an LIS professional and few listed one as a co-author (<i>n</i> = 194, 8%). We conclude that to improve reporting and strengthen the impact of the scoping review method in the social sciences, researchers should consider (1) adhering to PRISMA-S reporting guidelines, (2) employing more supplementary search strategies, and (3) collaborating with LIS professionals.</p>","PeriodicalId":226,"journal":{"name":"Research Synthesis Methods","volume":"15 6","pages":"950-963"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jrsm.1742","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Scoping review search practices in the social sciences: A scoping review\",\"authors\":\"Judith Logan,&nbsp;Jenaya Webb,&nbsp;Nalini K. Singh,&nbsp;Nailisa Tanner,&nbsp;Kathryn Barrett,&nbsp;Margaret Wall,&nbsp;Benjamin Walsh,&nbsp;Ana Patricia Ayala\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jrsm.1742\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>A thorough literature search is a key feature of scoping reviews. We investigated the search practices used by social science researchers as reported in their scoping reviews. We collected scoping reviews published between 2015 and 2021 from Social Science Citation Index. In the 2484 included studies, we observed a 58% average annual increase in published reviews, primarily from clinical and applied social science disciplines. Bibliographic databases comprised most of the information sources in the primary search strategy (<i>n</i> = 9565, 75%), although reporting practices varied. Most scoping reviews (<i>n</i> = 1805, 73%) included at least one supplementary search strategy. A minority of studies (<i>n</i> = 713, 29%) acknowledged an LIS professional and few listed one as a co-author (<i>n</i> = 194, 8%). We conclude that to improve reporting and strengthen the impact of the scoping review method in the social sciences, researchers should consider (1) adhering to PRISMA-S reporting guidelines, (2) employing more supplementary search strategies, and (3) collaborating with LIS professionals.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":226,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research Synthesis Methods\",\"volume\":\"15 6\",\"pages\":\"950-963\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jrsm.1742\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research Synthesis Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jrsm.1742\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Synthesis Methods","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jrsm.1742","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

全面的文献检索是范围界定审查的一个关键特征。我们调查了社会科学研究人员在其范围界定综述中使用的检索方法。我们从《社会科学引文索引》中收集了 2015 年至 2021 年间发表的范围界定综述。在收录的 2484 项研究中,我们发现发表的综述平均每年增加 58%,主要来自临床和应用社会科学学科。文献数据库是主要检索策略中的大部分信息来源(n = 9565,75%),但报告方式各不相同。大多数范围界定综述(n = 1805,73%)至少包含一种补充检索策略。少数研究(n = 713,29%)承认有一名 LIS 专业人员,很少有研究将其列为合著者(n = 194,8%)。我们的结论是,为了改进报告并加强范围综述方法在社会科学领域的影响,研究人员应考虑:(1)遵守 PRISMA-S 报告指南;(2)采用更多补充检索策略;(3)与 LIS 专业人员合作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Scoping review search practices in the social sciences: A scoping review

A thorough literature search is a key feature of scoping reviews. We investigated the search practices used by social science researchers as reported in their scoping reviews. We collected scoping reviews published between 2015 and 2021 from Social Science Citation Index. In the 2484 included studies, we observed a 58% average annual increase in published reviews, primarily from clinical and applied social science disciplines. Bibliographic databases comprised most of the information sources in the primary search strategy (n = 9565, 75%), although reporting practices varied. Most scoping reviews (n = 1805, 73%) included at least one supplementary search strategy. A minority of studies (n = 713, 29%) acknowledged an LIS professional and few listed one as a co-author (n = 194, 8%). We conclude that to improve reporting and strengthen the impact of the scoping review method in the social sciences, researchers should consider (1) adhering to PRISMA-S reporting guidelines, (2) employing more supplementary search strategies, and (3) collaborating with LIS professionals.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Research Synthesis Methods
Research Synthesis Methods MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGYMULTID-MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
CiteScore
16.90
自引率
3.10%
发文量
75
期刊介绍: Research Synthesis Methods is a reputable, peer-reviewed journal that focuses on the development and dissemination of methods for conducting systematic research synthesis. Our aim is to advance the knowledge and application of research synthesis methods across various disciplines. Our journal provides a platform for the exchange of ideas and knowledge related to designing, conducting, analyzing, interpreting, reporting, and applying research synthesis. While research synthesis is commonly practiced in the health and social sciences, our journal also welcomes contributions from other fields to enrich the methodologies employed in research synthesis across scientific disciplines. By bridging different disciplines, we aim to foster collaboration and cross-fertilization of ideas, ultimately enhancing the quality and effectiveness of research synthesis methods. Whether you are a researcher, practitioner, or stakeholder involved in research synthesis, our journal strives to offer valuable insights and practical guidance for your work.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information A tutorial on aggregating evidence from conceptual replication studies using the product Bayes factor Evolving use of the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool in biomedical systematic reviews Exploring methodological approaches used in network meta-analysis of psychological interventions: A scoping review An evaluation of the performance of stopping rules in AI-aided screening for psychological meta-analytical research
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1