Сравнение на методи
Прегледайте избраните методи един до друг; редовете с разлики са откроени.
| Преглед чрез мрежово картографиране× | Преглед на обхвата× | |
|---|---|---|
| Област | Наукометрия | Наукометрия |
| Семейство | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Година на възникване≠ | 2000s–2010s | 2005 |
| Създател≠ | Petticrew & Roberts (mapping review); network overlay adopted from bibliometric network analysis tradition | Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley |
| Тип≠ | Evidence synthesis method with network analysis overlay | Evidence synthesis review design |
| Основополагащ източник≠ | Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN: 978-1405121101 | Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. DOI ↗ |
| Други названия | network mapping review, citation-network mapping review, network-enhanced evidence mapping, network-informed mapping review | scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map |
| Свързани | 6 | 6 |
| Резюме≠ | A network-based mapping review combines the breadth of a traditional evidence mapping exercise with bibliometric network analysis to chart the structural landscape of a research field. Rather than simply cataloguing studies by topic, this approach constructs citation, co-authorship, or co-word networks to reveal clusters of intellectual activity, influential works, and collaboration patterns — producing both a visual and a descriptive map of the evidence base. | A scoping review is a systematic evidence-synthesis method that maps the breadth and nature of research on a topic — identifying key concepts, evidence types, and gaps — without necessarily appraising study quality or pooling effect sizes. Developed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and refined by Levac and colleagues (2010), it is particularly valuable for emerging or heterogeneous fields where a full systematic review would be premature or infeasible. |
| ScholarGateНабор от данни ↗ |
|
|