手法を比較

	体系的な検索戦略	引用分析
分野	研究スキル	研究スキル
系統	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
提唱年	1990s (formalized in Cochrane methodology)	1955 (citation indexes); 1975 (Impact Factor); 2005 (H-index)
提唱者	Cochrane Collaboration and systematic review methodologists	Eugene Garfield (Citation Indexes, 1955); Jorge Hirsch (H-index, 2005)
種類	Framework	Tool
原典	Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097.	Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569–16572.
別名	search protocol, systematic search, comprehensive search strategy	citation metrics, bibliometric analysis, citation tracking
関連	3	4
概要	A systematic search strategy is a comprehensive, transparent protocol for retrieving all relevant literature addressing a well-defined research question. Developed by the Cochrane Collaboration and formalized in guidelines like PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), systematic search strategies are essential for conducting unbiased literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Unlike ad hoc searches (searching Google Scholar or PubMed without a protocol), systematic searches document every step—which databases were searched, what search terms were used, how many results were retrieved, and what inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied—enabling other researchers to reproduce the search and verify that no relevant studies were missed.	Citation analysis is the systematic study of how scholarly works are cited by subsequent research, used as a proxy for research impact and influence. Founded formally by Eugene Garfield in 1955 (introducing citation indexes), the field encompasses metrics ranging from simple citation counts to sophisticated indices like the H-index (Hirsch, 2005) and field-normalized indicators. Citation analysis is used to evaluate researcher productivity, track influence of ideas, assess journal quality, and detect research trends. While citation counts are not perfect measures of quality (high citation does not equal high quality; time lag in citation accumulation), they provide valuable quantitative data for research evaluation alongside peer review and expert assessment.