Literature review mind map

Conducting Literature Reviewsthe goal of rigordefine internal validity as the extent to which the reviewrepresents accurately the phenomena it is intended todescribe or explaindefine objectivity as the extent to which areviews findings are determined by the objects of theinquiry and not by the researchers biases andvaluesdefine externalvalidity as the extent to which the findings haveapplicability in other contextsdefine external validity as the extent to which the findingshave applicability in other contextsTypes of Literature ReviewNarrative reviewssummarize previously published research on a topic ofinterestDevelopmental reviewsprovide a research community with new conceptualizations,research models, theories, frameworks or methodologicalapproachesCumulative reviewscompile empirical evidence to map bodies of literature anddraw overall conclusions regarding particular topics odinterestAggregative reviewsbring together prior findings and test specific researchhypotheses or propositions. By rigorously collating andpooling prior empirical data, aggregative reviews areparticularly valued for providing evidence-based validationsof pre-specified theoretical models and propositions.Descriptive reviewseek to determine the extent to which a body of empiricalstudies in a specific research area supports or reveals anyinterpretable patterns or trends with respect to pre-existingpropositions, theories, methodologies or findingsScoping reviewsattempt to provide an initial indication of the potential sizeand nature of the available literature on a particular topicMeta-analysisuse specific data extraction techniques and statisticalmethods to aggregate quantitative data in the form ofstandard effect measuresQualitative systematic reviewsattempt to search, identify, select, appraise, and abstractdata from quantitative empirical studies to answer thefollowing main questionsUmbrella reviewsa tertiary type of study that integrates relevant evidencefrom multiple systematic reviews [qualitative orquantitative] into one accessible and usable document toaddress a narrow research questionTheoretical reviewsdraws on existing conceptual and empirical studies toprovide a context for identifying, describing, andtransforming into a higher order of theoretical structure andvarious concepts, constructs or relationshipsRealist reviewstheory-driven interpretative reviews that were developed toinform, enhance, extendor alternatively supplement conventional systematicreviews by making sense of heterogeneous evidence aboutcomplex interventions applied in diverse contexts in a waythat informs policy decision makingCritical reviewsaim to critically analyze the extant literature on a broadtopic to reveal weaknesses, contradictions, controversies,or inconsistenciesA Systematic Review of Scholarly Research on the Contentof WikipediaQuality of ContentComprehensivenessMultidisciplinary and generalMedicine and healthHistotyPsychologyBiologyCommunicationCurrencyReadability and StyleReliabilityReliability assessment of Wikipediapositive or equivalent evaluationsnegative or inferior evaluationsverifiability: citing other sourcesquality-related trendsAntecedents of QualityGroup characteristicsEditing patterns and processesFeatured ArticlesSize of WikipediaMicro-Level Size FactorsMacro-Level Size Factorsserve as the background for an empirical study or as anindependent, standalone piece that provides a valuablecontribution in its own rightTask ATask BTask CGeneral procedureFormulation the problemThis step requires authors to define the review'sobjective[s], provide definitions of key concepts and justifythe need for a review articleGuidelines to Evaluate Standalone Literature Reviewsreviewed the reference lists of the abovementioned sourcesselected those papers that offer practical or pragmaticguidelines on how to perform literature reviewsvalidated our list of papers using the backward and forwardsearch techniquescarefully scrutinized each paperreflected on the usefulness and necessity of each activity,or guideline, in thereview process by questioning how it satisfied a specificpurpose in terms of the studys methodological rigor