Tránsito Ferreras-Fernández
Francisco J. García-Peñalvo
José A. Merlo-Vega
ABSTRACT
Systematic reviews have become an important source of information and very popular in knowledge areas as health and allied sciences, but nevertheless, despite its indisputable benefits, they are yet infrequently used in Library and Information Science research (LIS).
Systematic reviews are a type of scientific research that aims to integrate in an objective and systematic manner the results of empirical studies on a particular research problem in order to determine the state of the question in its field of study.
In this paper, we provide a brief survey on the literature reviews in the social science area and we propose the adoption of the systematic review as a methodology for recovering, analyzing, evaluating and critical appraising the relevant literature in library and information science (LIS).
- Campbell, S. A. and Menk, D. W. 2003. Editors' Introduction. Review of Educational Research. 73, 2, 123--124.Google Scholar
- Xu, J., Kang, Q., and Song, Z. 2015. The current state of systematic reviews in library and information studies. Library & Information Science Research. 37, 4, 296--310.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ferreira González, I., Urrútia, G., and Alonso-Coello, P. 2011. Revisiones sistemáticas y metaanálisis: bases conceptuales e interpretación. Revista Española de Cardiología. 64, 8, 688--696.Google Scholar
- Higgins, J. and Green, S. Eds. 2011. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention Version 5.1.0 {update March 2011}. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available from http://www.handbook.cochrane.orgGoogle Scholar
- Rapple, C. 2011. The role of the critical review article in alleviating information overload. Annual Reviews White Paper.Google Scholar
- Erren, T. C., Cullen P., and Erren, M. 2009. How to surf today's information tsunami: on the craft of effective reading. Medical Hypotheses. 73, 3, 278--9.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hampton, S. E. and Parker, J. N. 2011. Collaboration and Productivity in Scientific Synthesis. BioScience. 61, 11, 900--910.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ketcham, C. M. and Crawford, J. M. 2007. The impact of review articles. Laboratory Investigation. 87, 12, 1174--85.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Maier, H.R. 2013. What constitutes a good literature review and why does its quality matter? Environmental Modelling & Software. 43, 3--4. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pautasso, M. 2013. Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review. PLoS Computational Biology. 9, 7. e1003149.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Cooper, H.M. 1988. Organizing Knowledge Syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society. 1, 1, 104--126.Google Scholar
- Templier, M. and Paré, G. 2015. A Framework for Guiding and Evaluating Literature Reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 37,1,6.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Joseph, D., Ng, K.-Y., Koh, C., and Ang, S. 2007. Turnover of Information Technology Professionals: a Narrative Review, Meta-analytic Structural Equation Modeling, and Model Development. MIS Quarterly. 31, 3, 547--577. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Varey, R. J., Wood-Harper, T., and Wood, B. 2002. A theoretical review of management and information systems using a critical communications theory. Journal of Information Technology. 17, 4, 229--239.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Fichman, R. G. 1992. Information technology diffusion: A review of empirical research. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Information Systems (Dallas, Texas, December 13--16, 1992), 195--206. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yang, H. and Tate, M. 2009. Where are we at with Cloud Computing?: A Descriptive Literature Review. In 20th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (Melbourne, Australia, December 02--03, 2009), 13.Google Scholar
- Liu, Z., Min, Q., and Ji, S. 2008. A comprehensive review of research in IT adoption. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing (Dalian, China, October 12--14, 2008), 1--5.Google Scholar
- Williams, M. D., Dwivedi, Y. K., Lal, B., and Schwarz, A. 2009. Contemporary trends and issues in IT adoption and diffusion research. Journal of Information Technology. 24, 1, 1--10.Google ScholarCross Ref
- King, W. R. and He, J. 2006. A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management. 43, 6, 740--755. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Martín Rodero, H. 2014. La búsqueda bibliográfica, pilar fundamental de la Medicina Basada en la Evidencia: evaluación multivariante en las enfermedades nutricionales y metabólicas. Doctoral Thesis. Elche, Universidad Miguel Hernández.Google Scholar
- Petticrew, M. and Roberts, H. 2006. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Blackwell, Oxford.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Grant, M. J. and Booth, A. 2009. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal. 26, 2, 91--108.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sáenz, A. 2001. Leer e interpretar una revisión sistemática. Bol Pediatr. 41, 177, 215--21.Google Scholar
- Brettle, A. 2003. Information skills training: a systematic review of the literature*. Health Information and Libraries Journal. 20, s1, 3--9.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kitchenham, B. and Charters, S. 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. EBSE Technical Report. Keele University.Google Scholar
- Kitchenham, B. and Chartes, S. 2009. Systematic literature reviews in software engineering - A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology. 51, 1, 7--15. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Koufogiannakis, D. and Crumley, E. 2006. Research in librarianship: issues to consider. Library Hi Tech. 24, 3, 324--340.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wanden-Berghe, C. and Sanz-Valero, J. 2014. Revisiones sistemáticas sobre las funciones de los Ácidos grasos poliinsaturados omega-3 en la salud y la enfermedad. In Libro Blanco de los Omega-3 (eBook online), Gil Hernández A., Serra Majem L. Panamericana, Barcelona, 73--79.Google Scholar
- Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., and the PRISMA Group. 2009. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 6,7, e1000097.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- The systematic review of literature in LIS: an approach
Recommendations
Examining interdisciplinarity of library and information science (LIS) based on LIS articles contributed by non-LIS authors
This study investigated the external contributors of library and information science (LIS) knowledge who were unaffiliated with LIS-related institutions but published their research results in LIS journals. Differences between the contributors to ...
Are articles in library and information science (LIS) journals primarily contributed to by LIS authors?
AbstractThis study measured the proportion of articles by authors affiliated with library and information science (LIS)-related institutions and proportion of LIS authors in each journal using 3224 articles published in 75 journals in 2015 in the category ...
Largest contribution to LIS by external disciplines as measured by the characteristics of research articles
AbstractThe paper analyses Library and Information Science (LIS) articles published in leading international LIS journals based on their authors’ disciplinary backgrounds. The study combines content analysis of articles with authors’ affiliation analysis. ...
Comments