Literature Review - Science topic

Hello Dr Vikram Kumar

Some journals will have open disclosure of the reviews such that these appear or can be accessed at the time the journal article is published. But, of course, they do not do this if a paper is rejected!

Hello, during my master's degree I came across the same challenge. I would like to leave as a recommendation my master's thesis where I did a literature review on climate change.

The point of your question is not clear

Would love to know more about your work.

To separate a Masters Dissertation into two journal articles, you could follow these steps:

Here is a helpful read.

American Psychological Association. (2022, July). Adapting a dissertation or thesis into a journal article. https://apastyle.apa.org. https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/research-publication/dissertation-thesis

Good luck,

Here are some studies that investigate the usage of social media by seniors/older adults, which you may find useful for your literature review:

Cotten, S. R., Anderson, W. A., & McCullough, B. M. (2013). Impact of internet use on loneliness and contact with others among older adults: Cross-sectional analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(2), e39.

Chiang, Y. H., Chuang, L. H., & Chen, Y. C. (2016). Social media use and participation in community-based activities among older adults in Taiwan. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 59(3), 244-257.

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2011). Connection strategies: Social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media & Society, 13(6), 873-892.

Lu, X., Wang, L., & Banerjee, S. (2017). Social media and elderly in Singapore: A study on social isolation, loneliness, depression and happiness. Health and Technology, 7(1), 25-33.

Xie, B., Watkins, I., Golbeck, J., & Huang, M. (2014). Understanding and changing older adults' perceptions and learning of social media. Educational Gerontology, 40(3), 211-221.

These studies may provide you with valuable insights into the motivations, challenges, and benefits of social media use among seniors/older adults. Good luck with your research!

Qeios functions as a scientific research publishing platform that differs from traditional academic journals, as it enables open peer review and collaboration among researchers. Manuscripts can be uploaded to the platform prior to undergoing peer-review and publication in an academic journal. Reviewers' identities are disclosed, and they can provide feedback and engage in discussions with the author and other reviewers. While Qeios offers benefits to researchers seeking open and collaborative feedback, there is no assurance that articles will be accepted or widely acknowledged by the academic community.

It has three components: introduction of your work and why it is important, summary of the relevant literature as it relates to your study, and your hypotheses (in that order). But make it all about your study; we want to know what you are doing :)

There has been a significant amount of research on crime rate prediction, particularly in the field of criminology and criminal justice. Some of the key findings and methods used in this research are summarized below, along with references for further reading:

Hi, RG Scholar,

The following textbooks are good references to guide you in composing your literature review:

1) Preparing Literature Reviews Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches Fourth Edition; Author: M. Ling Pan; Publisher: Pyrczak Publishing; Address: P. O. Box 250430, Glendale, CA 91225

2) Writing Literature Reviews A Guide for Students of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Sixth Edition; Author: Jose L. Galvan; Publisher: Pyrczak Publishing; Address: P.O. Box 250430, Glendale, CA 91225

All the best for you,

Best regards.

Dr. Zoncita Del Mundo Norman

Hello Krishna Prasad sir,

Hope this may help you

Thanks, Dr. Chakraborty

Thank you for giving me opportunity on this platform to discuss ideas ..... In research question kindly add interventional study for depressive patients something like effect of any therapy on depression so that these patients get benefits in a right manner ......or prevalence of depression in particular area can be assessed on the basis of this research question literature may be reviewed...best wishes ...

Seems like the survey form already expired. And....A rather sad example of user interfaces in itself. However, if you're trying to learn more about user interfaces I strongly recommend looking outside of the Computer Science field.

Crisis and emergency alert http://youtu.be/Ng1-KJueYiU Time for the people to stand together to bypass, help us build the bypass. We have the foundation's know

Ensuring the validity of the inclusion and exclusion criteria in a literature review is crucial for ensuring that the literature review is comprehensive, relevant and reliable. The following are some processes that can be implemented to ensure the validity of the inclusion and exclusion criteria:

By implementing these processes, you can ensure that the inclusion and exclusion criteria are applied consistently and objectively, and that the literature review is comprehensive, relevant, and reliable.

You just write at the end of your Introduction what you intend to study and why. These days, you don't really require a hypothesis, especially if you're testing models :)

Victoria Palumbo Photon irradiance and Photosynthetic Photon Flux Density (PPFD) are notions that are similar but not identical.

The intensity of electromagnetic radiation (e.g., light) as it is emitted from a source is measured as photon irradiance. It is commonly measured in photons per square meter per second (photons/m2/s) or watts per square meter (W/m2).

The photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) is a measure of the number of photons received by a surface per unit of time in the 400-700 nm wavelength range (i.e., the photosynthetically active radiation or PAR range). It is usually measured in micromoles per square meter per second (mol/m2/s).

While photon irradiance and PPFD are both measurements of light intensity, PPFD is more particularly focused on the range of wavelengths that are most significant for photosynthesis and hence more helpful for evaluating plant growth and development potential. In horticulture and plant physiology research, PPFD is frequently used to investigate the effects of varied illumination conditions on plant growth and development.

Sascha Kraus et al just put out a good article on best practices for conducting lit review / writing review articles. It's open access - check it out:

Waseem Ahmad Ansari Thank you very much for the reply!

Thank you! All the answers were very helpful!

MTT (3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide) assay is a colorimetric assay used to measure cell proliferation, which is based on the reduction of the yellow tetrazolium salt MTT to a purple-colored formazan product by mitochondrial dehydrogenases found in live cells. The amount of formazan product that is formed is directly proportional to the amount of living cells present. Wavelength of 550nm is used in the MTT assay to read the amount of formazan product formed because it is the wavelength at which the absorbance of formazan is the highest.

Can you turn this reality into an advantage for your research.

The lack of previous study of CPD for College teachers surely has the potential to make your research all the more interesting...

When you say you are 'working on' CPD, what are you actually focussing on, and why? eg: are you interested in

Can the answers to such Qs help steer your literature review?

Always bear in mind the purpose of the study being conducted. Is the study for the advancement of the interest of ethnic minorities? Is the study being conducted an evaluative measure or just classification of ethnic minorities? If it is so, identify the urgent needs of the respondents and or affected minorities that the research can possibly address.

I found APA style a very convenient, professional, and scholarly style of writing my articles, reflections, essays, etc. wherein the "Literature Review" is a major "Heading" section in all of the articles/reflections/scholarly papers/etc. that I had/have written and published so far.

I wonder why such subject is referred to me.I'm specialized in English Literature.

Although a chapter on literature review primarily focuses on the critical review of previous and current research studies related to our topic, it also requires our critical evaluation of the theoretical frameworks available for conducting research in that specific field. As far as the framework the scholar intends to use for her/his research is concerned, it can either be discussed along with the definition of key terms before presenting a critique on the existing body of research literature available on the topic or while identifying the gaps in the existing body of research literature.

It depends how central they are to your study and how long your introduction is to your lit review. If the intro is only one paragraph, then they might not be mentioned. If it is several pages, they are more likely to be mentioned.

Dear Sarwar J. Minar ,

With the evolving and interdisciplinary nature of research, there is a need to facilitate and assist researchers in the manual process of building a literature review. This paper proposes an assisted literature review prototype based on machine learning models (MLM) to discover, rank and recommend the relevant papers.

Regards,

Shafagat

Can you share some of the examples

Go to http://springer.com and look up the journal you are interested in by using the search box. Then, click on the journal to go to its home page. The Impact Factor is shown on the left hand side of the the journal's homepage

Hello Saif ul Islam

In addition to the comments above, I seem to have the impression that state-of-the-art reviews - from the ones I have read, seemed to not only provide a broad spectrum of knowledge as suggested by Tushti Sharma - it provides information that is most up-to-date so has to incorporate the latest literature and evidence to provide guidance and advice on the latest methods. This will, of course, incorporate primary sources as mentioned by Jennifer Garcia .

I have used Google Scholar a great deal but you have to be discerning in what you choose from whatever search results it provides. As with any article, no matter where you find it, it is necessary to establish scholarly integrity, not necessarily by the number of times the article has been quoted but by assessing what sources have been used and the quality of analysis undertaken. Whilst following pointers from colleagues or supervisors is obviously beneficial, particularly in ensuring you have a strong grounding in established theories and principles, it is also necessary to 'follow your nose' to discover new lines of enquiry which can come from the unlikeliest of quarters.

Pros and cons of LR is evaluated on the basis of how well we have analysed the research gap and justification of research topic. So any review of the effectiveness of LR should be structured around these two primary elements of research.

Kh Zhang Follow these steps:

Step 1: Describe your methodological approach. You might begin by introducing your general research strategy.

Step 2: Explain how you will collect data.

Step 3: Explain your approach to analysis.

Step 4: Assess and defend your methodological decisions.

Hans-Georg Petersen ,

I will also be kind. My advise to you is that when you provide an answer to a question give an argument that is sustainable and take a look on whether your answer is just self centered. You could have evoked a different response from me if you did not build the argument with the unwritten premises that you did.

I think you should have a section on prior research reviews, if only to show why yours will add to the field.

The online Purchase intention: Some factors such as lower cost, and easier to get, , at the same time there are some risk factors as well such as fraud, and dissatisfaction with the products. Therefore one needs to be careful before purchasing

Kindly

Augusto

Most branches of the natural sciences operate according to the reigning scientific paradigm; the social sciences, however, are conditioned by different and sometimes competing wordviews. Irrespective, a science experiences problems when it fails to solve important puzzles or anomalies; competing paradigms are then likely to emerge. Reigning and competing paradigms have deep implications for trust. Ergo, an important term for this query's search equation ought to be "research paradigm" (or "worldview").

Dear Prof. Rupali kantilal Jadhav & all the respected RG colleagues,

As Prof. Gaurav H Tandon said: "A plagiarism check is carried out for the entire thesis, literature reviews are not an exception."

On the other side, plagiarism is a common problem facing almost all professors. This respected portal (i.e. RG) defines plagiarism as:

On the other side, self-plagiarism is when the author republishes portions of his/her own previously written research work while authoring a new work.

I may be somewhat old-fashioned, but please have a look at the following golden principles on how to avoid plagiarism in academic writing, especially Self-Plagiarism:

Finally, believe me, or not: If you make one plagiarizing, you may solve one problem and fall into many others where some of which may be described as a knockout. Again and again, please always remember that if there were accusations of plagiarism, it is not well for any researcher's reputation, in any meaning.

As literature reviews are various, you can choose the most suitable one for ur work.

you can do so by adopting an eclectic model of analysis.

The guidance/information in relation to using tables for literature review may further help, namely:

“Many reviews contain a summary table designed to present an overview of the articles discussed in the review and their key findings. This can add clarity and make the process of following the author’s development of the review easier for the reader. The headings of the table will depend on the purpose of the review…..” (Bolderston, 2008, p. 90).

“Some authors use summary tables of included studies in the main body of their review and then include full reports as appendices or supplements. A table of excluded studies (i.e. studies that appear to meet the inclusion criteria but which, on closer examination, are excluded for good reasons) is frequently included in standards of reporting…..” (Booth et al, 2012, p. 30).

Chapter 7 : Building Tables to Summarize Literature (Galvan, 2017, pp. 65-71).

“The objective in using different formats and summary tables is to synthesise large amounts of information in a clear and concise way that makes it easy for the reader to both understand and to make comparisons between the broader approaches being reviewed. It is much easier to summarise with the use of tables, graphics, and other illustrative material, and it should also make the narrative easier to follow for the reader” (van Wee and Banister, 2016, p. 285).

No comparto la idea de EQ. La inteligencia es única, un complejo que incluye tanto lo emocional como las operaciones llamadas racionales. El bienestar de un individuo depende del uso acertado (cosa que no siempre ocurre) que haga de la misma, en las diferentes circunstancias de su vida

Go to Google and ask the same question, it ill give a list of that, you choose what you like.Regards.

It depends on what you are trying to focus on. If you are more concerned of the bigger picture, then include the abortion debate, although in a narrower sense. If you will focus on the legal technicalities of the ruling or just the case itself, it is probably best to focus on the Roe vs. Wade literature.

The following RG link is also very useful:

You say: Davy reported that.... or say: Davy cited from Heskel that ....in the first case no need to mention both references, but in the second , you mention both and it is the best. Regards.

I feel research should start with an objective preparing certain questions to investigate. while investigating, all the necessary related information in the name of review of the literature to be collected and finding the results drawn from their research. while establishing their findings, they might suggest their scope and scope for further research. The fresh researcher should start his research from where the previous researcher stopped and suggested further research.

I know I'm late for this but still wanna share what I know with other researchers who are interested in this topic.

MECIR, JBI SUMARI, PROSPERO, PRISMA (or formerly known as QUOROM), PICO, SPIDER, CONSORT, MOOSE, EQUATOR, AGREE II, AMSTAR 2

Since you are an early modernist, Helen Hackett has a new book out, Inside the Elizabethan Mind (Yale UP, 2022), about early modern psychology and conceptions of the self, I think.

The following RG links are also very useful:

You can read these research articles,

As children, we often have fond memories of enjoying a story at our bedside. Perhaps, we have pleasant memories of story time during our primary years of school. Even as adults, we enjoy curling up in the bed with a good book, to escape to another world, into the life of a character. The secret of our attachment to stories is that it stimulates our emotions. It is exciting to discover how the conflict gets resolved. However, is it possible to have storytelling in science? Ordinary scientific observations can be made interesting with the principal elements of story writing.

https://www.enago.com/academy/storytelling-in-science-communicating-your-research-effectively/

Dear Jerry

the simple answer is "Reading"

As mentioned above, to get the research gap you must conclude a comprehensive literature review, while doing the literature review you should be able to

1- See what others have done in your search area

2-Identify the methodology which was used in each of the studies

3-Recognize limitations or recommendations that could be adopted in your future research

4- Point out the research gap for your study

Hey Julia

Unfortunately, most if not all have a page or word limit. However, there are some that may allow your paper to go through the review process unchanged. They will then ask that you trim it as it progresses through. Try International Journal of Management Reviews. Also, consider turning some of your tables/figures/appendices into a separate data file. This may help reduce the length somewhat. Many Elsevier journals in Business and Management are happy to publish a review article plus a separate data file.

Good luck with your research.

It is so difficult to live with stress, how can we work with It? We should manage our stress ,then life will looks better and people too! ,then you can work better.Regards

In all cases ,you can try doing it .then you can deduce what is more useful for your study

I would just pay if it's one paper. You will be thankful you did :)

Yes, if the concepts have emerged from your analysis they are defined in the methodology.

Thank you Sofiane for your suggestions and kind gesture.

Thank you Michael for your inputs

You are most welcome dear Julien Bortolotti . Wish you the best always.

Both have different but significant relevance. Review paper is based on secondary data whereas research paper involves application of statistical tools.

The guidance/illustrations as per the following publications may further help:

Hi Patrick! We recently released the Argo Scholar tool to help with visually exploring the literature https://poloclub.github.io/argo-scholar/

It's a web app, so there is nothing to install. And you can share your exploration results easily via a URL.

Cheers,

Polo

I have attached an article where I discussed some of the previous work on GT and literature reviews. In general, the field has relaxed quite a bit about when you can do a literature review.

As for theoretical sampling, the preferred method would be to begin with a given set of participants, do a preliminary analysis, and then select a theoretically relevant second set of participants for comparison. After that you, repeat the process until new sub-groups do not yield new insights. By segmenting your sample from the beginning, you have short-circuited this process.

This reliance on a priori assumptions about what is relevant to your theory seems to be a general problem with your approach, because this does not fit with any of the major versions of GT.

Have you done your coding throughout the data collection process, and did your data collection evolve in line with those preliminary analyses? If not, and you have instead postponed your coding until after data collection, then I suggest you switch to a method that encourages that format, such as Braun & Clarke's Thematic Analysis.

In my opinion, no you can't.

Literature review cannot objectively answer a research question. On the other hand, systematic reviews, are research projects by themselves and can answer research questions. They are conducted based on stated methodology. There are several types of systematic reviews (systematic reviews of effectiveness studies, systematic reviews of prevalence studies, Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence, scoping reviews, systematic reviews of mixed methods studies, systematic reviews of diagnostic studies, etc).

Just like primary studies, we can have systematic reviews of mixed methods studies (e.g, to synthesize evidence of effectiveness and evidence of meaningfulness and [resent in a single article). Nevertheless, it does not mean that we combine literature reviews with primary studies and call them systematic reviews. Neither does it mean that we can combine systematic reviews and primary studies. I do not see the advantage of mixing them when we can present them separately. The scoping review may help you to identify gaps in evidence, information on how the subject has been investigated by others, and how the subject of interest has been conceptualized. Even if it helps you this way, it cannot constitute a component of a methodology in your report of primary study. You may use the evidence to present the rationale for the conduct of your study. You may mention why and how you conceptualized your primary study based on the evidence you found from the scoping review. That does not mean that you are using mixed methods. If you want, you can report both works in separate articles/chapters.

Demonstrating how ideas have been synthesised by mentioning at least 2 key sources would seem the best scholarly approach. That way, positioning your idea is made clear from the outset. If an idea is totally new, its newness still needs contextualising - new in relation to what? If the approach is new, use existing scholarship to demonstrate how; if the topic and approach are both new, demonstrate their uniqueness by comparing and contrasting it to what has been done previously. In my opinion, a proposal or abstract should follow the same logic as any longer piece of writing - introduce the topic, say where it fits within current scholarship, describe the approach and why, describe the findings, then conclude with whether the results of the research prove or refute the thesis. Obviously a proposal differs somewhat in that you cannot mention outcomes before the research has been completed, but it is possible to say what you're hoping to discover.

Dear Sartaj, I recommend you take a look at this references for a general perspective on the main points related to the exports-jobs discussion:

Look! Nvivo is just a software for analysis.

It is always the skill of the researcher to use the software for his purpose.