Are systematic reviews better, less biased and of higher quality?

19th European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS 2011

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages

  Boell, Sebastian K ^a   Cezec Kecmanovic, Dubravka ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

Database searches; Hermeneutic circle; Hermeneutic literature review; Literature reviews; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC RESEARCH; CONTEXTUALIZE; DATABASE SEARCHES; HERMENEUTIC CIRCLE; JOURNAL ARTICLES; LITERATURE REVIEWS; NEW FORMS; SEARCH TECHNIQUE; SELECTION PROCESS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

INFORMATION SYSTEMS; SEARCH ENGINES;

RESEARCH;

EID: 84870634367     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (38)

1. Alm, G. (1916). Monography of Swedish fresh water ostracoda, along with the systematic review of Tribus Podocopa. Zoologiska Bidrag Fran Uppsala. 4. 1-248.
2. Beecham, S.; Baddoo, N.; Hall, T.; Robinson, H. and Sharp, H. (2006). Protocol for a Systematic Literature Review of Motivation in Software Engineering. Hatflield: University of Hertfordshire, Technical Report No 453. [online] http://hdl.handle.net/2299/992
3. Bensman, Stephen J. (2007). Garfield and the Impact Factor. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. 41. 93-155.
4. Blair, David (2006). Wittgenstein, Language and Information. Back to the Rough Ground!. Dordrecht: Springer.
5. Bodoff, D. (2009). Emergence of terminological conventions as a searcher-indexer coordination game. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(12). 2509-2529.
6. Boell, S.K. and Cecez-Kecmanovic D. (2010). Literature reviews and the hermeneutic circle. Australian Academic and Research Libraries. 41(2). 129-144.
7. Boland, R.J.; Newmanb, M. and Pentland, B.T. (2010). Hermeneutical exegesis in information systems design and use. Information and Organization. 20(1). 1-20.
8. Bradford, Samuel C. (1934). Sources of information on specific subjects. Engineering. 137(3550). 85-86.
9. reprint in: Journal of Information Science. 1985. 10(4). pp. 173-180
10. Buckland, M. and Gey, F. (1994). The relationship between Recall and Precision. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 45(1). 12-19.
11. Chalmers, I. and Altman, D.G. (1995). Systematic reviews. London: BMJ.
12. Clarke, M.J. and Stewart, L.A. (1995). Obtaining data from randomized controlled trials: how much do we need for reliable and informative meta-analyses?. In: Chalmers, I. and Altman, D.G. (Eds.). Systematic reviews. London: BMJ. 37-47.
13. Dybå, T. and Dingsøyr, T. (2008). Strength of Evidence in Systematic Reviews in Software Engineering. In ESEM Proceedings of the Second ACM-IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering and measurement (pp. 178-187).
14. Eysenck, H.J. (1995). Problems with meta-analysis. In: Chalmers, I. and Altman, D.G. (Eds.). Systematic reviews. London: BMJ. 64-74.
15. Fugman, R. (2007). Informationstheorie: Der Jahrhundertbluff. Eine zeitkritische Betrachtung (Teil 1). Information Wissenschaft und Praxis. 58(8). 449-458.
16. Garfield, E. (1987a). Reviewing review literature. Part 1, Definitions and uses of reviews. Current Contents. 18(May 4). 5-8. [online] http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v10p113y1987.pdf
17. Garfield, E. (1987b). Reviewing review literature. Part 2, The Place of Reviews in the Scientific Literature. Current Contents. 19(May 11). 3-8. [online] http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v10p117y1987.pdf
18. Greenhalgh, T. (1997). How to read a paper: Papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews and meta-analyses). British Medical Journal. 315(7109). 243-246.
19. Greenhalgh, T. and Peacock, R. (2005). Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. British Medical Journal. 331(7524). 1064-1065.
20. Hartley, J. and Betts, L. (2009). Common weaknesses in traditional abstracts in the social sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(10). 2010-2018.
21. Hood, W.W. and Wilson, C.S. (2001). The Scatter of Documents Over Databases in Different Subject Domains: How Many Databases Are Needed?. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 52(14). 1242-1254.
22. Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele, Eversleigh: Keele University and NICTA, Technical Report. [online] http://www.idi.ntnu.no/emner/empse/papers/kitchenham-2004.pdf
23. Kitchenham, B. and Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering. [online] http://www.dur.ac.uk/ebse/resources/guidelines/Systematic-reviews-5-8.pdf
24. Knipschild, P. (1995). Some examples of systematic reviews. In: Chalmers, Iain; & Altman, Douglas G. (Eds.). Systematic reviews. London: BMJ. 9-16.
25. MacLure, M. (2005). 'Clarity bordering on stupidity': Where's the quality in systematic review?. Journal of Education Policy. 20(4). 393-416.
26. Mees, G. F. (1957). A systematic review of the Indo-Australian zosteropidae. Leiden: Brill.
27. Mulrow, C.D. (1995). Rationale for systematic reviews. In: Chalmers, Iain; & Altman, Douglas G. (Eds.). Systematic reviews. London: BMJ. 1-8.
28. Oxman, A.D. (1995). Checklists for review articles. In: Chalmers, Iain; & Altman, Douglas G. (Eds.). Systematic reviews. London: BMJ. 75-85.
29. Oxman, A.D. and Guyatt, G.H. (1988). Guidelines for reading literature reviews. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association journal. 138(8). 697-703.
30. Petticrew, M. and Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences. A practical guide. Malden: Blackwell.
31. Ramberg, B. and Gjesdal, K. (2009). Hermeneutics. In: Edward N.Z. (Ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford: The Metaphysics Research Lab. [online] http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2009/entries/hermeneutics/
32. Shiffman, R.N.; Liaw, Y.; Brandt, C.A. and Corb, G.J. (1999). Computer-based guideline implementation systems: A systematic review of functionality and effectiveness. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 6(2). 104-114.
33. Staples, M. and Niazi, M. (2007). Experiences using systematic review guidelines. Journal of Systems and Software. 80(9). 1425-1437.
34. Thompson, S.G. (1995). Why sources of heterogenity in meta-analysis should be investigated. In: Chalmers, Iain; & Altman, Douglas G. (Eds.). Systematic reviews. London: BMJ. 48-63.
35. Watson, R.T. (2001). Introducing MISQ Review - A new department in MIS Quarterly. MIS Quarterly. 25(1). 103-106.
36. Webster, Jane; & Watson, Richard T. (2002). Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review. MIS Quarterly. 26(2). xiii-xxiii.
37. 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.
38. Wilson, C.S. (1999). Using Online Databases to Form Subject Collections for Informetric Analyses. Scientometrics. 46(3). 647-667.