Preview

Science Editor and Publisher

Advanced search

Reviews as a promising kind of scholarly publication, its types and characteristics

https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2019-3-4-131-139

Full Text:

Abstract

Reviews have been published for years in medical journals as integrators of new data in evidence-based medicine. This type of publication is finding its way into social sciences, humanities and other areas, getting popularity in the global context of the unprecedented rise in scholarly information. Reviews arrange and streamline the inflow of information, critically reflect on the new research contributions to science, outline the focus trends in subject areas and define gaps in the knowledge. Comparatively limited expertise of Russian researchers in authoring reviews is analysed against the advanced international traditions coupled with some practical guidelines relating to internationally published high-quality reviews. The article considers functions, characteristics, taxonomy and methodologies of reviews as a highly potential type of scientific publication for science in Russia. The authors also touch upon criteria for taxonomy resulting in multiple types of reviews and specific features of methods of the most popular and widely spread reviews (systematic reviews, scoping reviews, bibliometric reviews, etc.) in various fields and disciplines.

About the Authors

L. K. Raitskaya
Moscow Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University)
Russian Federation

Lilia K. Raitskaya - Dr. Sci. (Pedagogy), Associated Professor, Professor of the Chair of Pedagogy and Psychology, Rector’s Advisor



E. V. Tikhonova
RUND University; Russian Academy of Education
Russian Federation

Elena V. Tikhonova - Cand. Sci. (History), Associated Professor, Head of the Editorial Office of the Journal of Language and Education.

Moscow



References

1. Azer S. A. The Top-Cited Articles in Medical Education: A Bibliometric Analysis. Academic Medicine. 2015;90(8):1147-1161. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000780.

2. Renck Jalongo M., Saracho O. N. Writing for Publication: Transitions and Tools that Support Scholars’ success. Springer; 2016.

3. Grant M., Booth A. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal. 2009;26(2):91-108. DOI: 10.1111/i.1471-1842.2009.00848.

4. Torres J. T., Higheagle Strong Z., Adesope O. O. Reflection through assessment: A systematic narrative review of teacher feedback and student self-perception. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2020;64:100814. DOI: 10.1016/i.stueduc.2019.100814.

5. Topoglu Y., Watson J., Suri R., Ayaz H. Electrodermal activity in ambulatory settings: a narrative review of literature. In: Ayaz H. (eds) Advances in Neuroergonomics and Cognitive Engineering. AHFE 2019. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. Vol. 953. Springer, Cham; 2020, pp. 91-102. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-20473-0_10.

6. Kragt D., Holtrop D. Volunteering research in Australia: A narrative review. Australian Journal of Psychology. 2019;71(4):342-360. DOI: 10.1111/aipy.12251.

7. Durojaye O., Laseinde T., Oluwafemi I. A Descriptive Review of Carbon Footprint. In: Ahram T., Karwowski W., Pickl S., Taiar R. (eds) Human Systems Engineering and Design II. IHSED 2019. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. Vol. 1026. Springer, Cham; 2020, pp. 960-968. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-27928-8_144.

8. Muggah R. Negotiating disarmament and demobilisation: A descriptive review of the evidence. Colombia International. 2013;77:21-41. Available at: http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/rci/n77/n77a02.pdf

9. Zhu J.-H. Public opinion polling in China: A descriptive review. Gazette. 1988;41(2):127-138. DOI: 10.1177/001654928804100204.

10. Blass A. P., Gouvea da Costa S. E. Pinheiro de Lima E., Tortato U., Borges L. A. Environmental Performance Measurement in Hospitals: A Bibliometric Review of Literature (1987-2017). In: Leal Filho W., Tortato U., Franken-berger F. (eds) Universities and Sustainable Communities: Meeting the Goals of the Agenda 2030. World Sustainability Series. Springer, Cham; 2020, pp. 133-145. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-30306-8_8.

11. Duran-Sanchez A., Alvarez Garda J., Del Rrn-Rama M. C., Ratten V. Trends and changes in the International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research: A bibliometric review. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research. 2019;25(7):1494-1514. DOI: 10.1108/ITEBR-04-2019-0249.

12. Grosseck G., Tiru L. G., Bran R. A. Education for sustainable development: Evolution and perspectives: A bibliometric review of research, 1992-2018. Sustainability 2019;11(21):6136. DOI: 10.3390/su11216136.

13. Sant E. Democratic Education: A Theoretical Review (2006-2017). Review of Educational Research. 2019;89(5):655-696. DOI: 10.3102/0034654319862493.

14. Bostrom M., Andersson E., Berg M., Gustafsson K., Gustavsson E., Hysing E., et al. Conditions for transformative learning for sustainable development: A theoretical review and approach. Sustainability. 2018;10(12):4479. DOI: 10.3390/su10124479.

15. Smith R., Killgore W. D. S., Lane R. D. The structure of emotional experience and its relation to trait emotional awareness: A theoretical review. Emotion. 2018;18(5):670-692. DOI: 10.1037/emo0000376.

16. Lepage R., Glass S. V., Knowles W., Mukhopadhyaya P. Biodeterioration Models for Building Materials: Critical Review. Journal of Architectural Engineering. 2019;25(4). DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000366.

17. Barnes S., Bloch S. Why is measuring communication difficult? A critical review of current speech pathology concepts and measures. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics. 2019;33(3):219-236. DOI: 10.1080/02699206.2018.1498541.

18. Lai P.-С. Chinese explorations of orthodox theology: A critical review. International journal for the Study of the Christian Church. 2018;14:27-42. DOI: 10.1080/1474225X.2018.1549212.

19. Buse C. G., Sax M., Nowak N., Jackson J., Fresco T., Fyfe T., Halseth G. Locating community impacts of unconventional natural gas across the supply chain: A scoping review. The Extractive Industries and Society. 2019;6(2):620-629. DOI: 10.1016/i.exis.2019.03.002.

20. Doosty F., Maleki M., Yarmohammadian M. An investigation on workload indicator of staffing need: A scoping review. Journal of Education and Health Promotion. 2019;8(1). DOI: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_220_18.

21. Lee C. A., Pais K., Kelling S., Anderson O. S. A scoping review to understand simulation used in interprofessional education. Journal of Interprofessional Education & Practice. 2018;13:15-23. DOI: 10.1016/i.xjep.2018.08.003.

22. Arksey H., O’Malley L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice. 2005;8(1):19-32. DOI: 10.1080/1364557032000119616.

23. Mucci N, Traversini V, Giorgi G, Garzaro G, Fiz-Perez J, Campagna M, et al. Migrant Workers and physical health: An umbrella review. Sustainability. 2019;11(1):232. DOI: 10.3390/su11010232.

24. Onyura B., Baker L., Cameron B., Friesen F., Leslie K. Evidence for curricular and instructional design approaches in undergraduate medical education: An umbrella review. Medical Teacher. 2016;38(2):150-161. DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2015.1009019.

25. Mbemba G. Gagnon M.-P., Pare G., Cote J. Interventions for supporting nurse retention in rural and remote areas: An umbrella review. Human Resources for Health. 2013;11:44. DOI: 10.1186/1478-4491-11-44.

26. Biondi-Zoccai G. (ed.) Umbrella Reviews: Evidence Synthesis with overviews of Reviews and Meta-Epidemiologic Studies. Springer; 2016. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-25655-9.

27. Paterson C., Paterson N., Jackson W., Work F. What are students’ needs and preferences for academic feedback in higher education? A systematic review. Nurse Education Today. 2020;85:104236. DOI: 10.1016/i.nedt.2019.104236.

28. Amor A. M., Hagiwara M., Shogren K. A., Thompson J. R., Verdugo M. A., Burke K. M., et al. International perspectives and trends in research on inclusive education: a systematic review. International Journal of Inclusive Education. 2019;23(12):1277-1295. DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2018.1445304.

29. Tortella-Feliu M., Fullana M. A., Perez-Vigil A., Torres X., Chamorro J., Littarelli S. A., et al. Risk factors for posttraumatic stress disorder: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Neuroscience & Biobe-havioralReviews. 2019;107:154-165. DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.09.013.

30. Burgers C., Brugman B. C., Boeynaems A. Systematic literature reviews: Four applications for interdisciplinary research. Journal of Pragmatics. 2019;145:102-109. DOI: 10.1016/i.pragma.2019.04.004.

31. Raitskaya L., Tikhonova E. Scoping Reviews: What is in a Name? Journal of Language and Education. 2019;5(2):4-9. DOI: 10.17323/ile.2019.9689.

32. Yeganeh A. J., McCoy A. P., Schenk T. Determinants of climate change policy adoption: A meta-analysis. Urban Climate. 2020;31:100547. DOI: 10.1016/i.uclim.2019.100547.

33. van Alten D. C. D., Phielix C., Janssen J., Kester L. Effects of flipping the classroom on learning outcomes and satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review. 2019;28:100281. DOI: 10.1016/i.edurev.2019.05.003.

34. Kouba K., Lysek J. What Affects Invalid Voting? A Review and Meta-Analysis. Government and Opposition. 2019;54(4):745-775. DOI: 10.1017/gov.2018.33.

35. Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J., Altman D. G. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoSMed. 2009;6(7):e1000097. DOI: 10.1371/iournal.pmed.1000097.


For citation:


Raitskaya L.K., Tikhonova E.V. Reviews as a promising kind of scholarly publication, its types and characteristics. Science Editor and Publisher. 2019;4(3-4):131-139. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2019-3-4-131-139

Views: 1765


ISSN 2542-0267 (Print)
ISSN 2541-8122 (Online)