ScholarGate
어시스턴트

방법 비교

선택한 방법을 나란히 검토하세요. 서로 다른 행은 강조 표시됩니다.

스코핑 리뷰×계량서지 분석×통합적 검토×매핑 검토×
분야과학계량학과학계량학과학계량학과학계량학
계열Process / pipelineProcess / pipelineProcess / pipelineProcess / pipeline
기원 연도20051969 (term coined); practice dates to 1920s–1930s2005 (updated methodology); roots in Cooper (1982)Late 1990s–2000s; major methodological formalization ~2010s
창시자Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'MalleyAlan Pritchard (coined term); earlier quantitative work by Paul Otlet (1934) and S. C. Bradford (1934)Robin Whittemore & Kathleen KnaflBuckland & Gann (1998); formalized by systematic review community (Campbell Collaboration, Collaboration for Environmental Evidence)
유형Evidence synthesis review designQuantitative literature analysisSystematic review methodSystematic evidence mapping methodology
원전Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. DOI ↗Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348–349. link ↗Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553. DOI ↗James, K. L., Randall, N. P., & Haddaway, N. R. (2016). A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environmental Evidence, 5(1), 7. DOI ↗
별칭scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence mapbibliometrics, bibliometric study, bibliometric mapping, publication analysisintegrative literature review, integrative research review, ILR, integrative synthesisevidence map, systematic map, research map, literature map
관련6666
요약A 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.Bibliometric analysis applies statistical and mathematical methods to bibliographic records — publications, citations, authors, journals, and keywords — to measure and map the structure, output, and intellectual evolution of a research field. It is widely used to identify influential works, prolific authors, productive journals, collaboration networks, and emerging research themes across any academic discipline.An integrative review is a systematic method for synthesising literature that allows the simultaneous inclusion of diverse study designs — experimental, quasi-experimental, and non-experimental — as well as theoretical papers. Unlike the conventional systematic review, which is restricted to controlled trials or a single methodology, the integrative review builds a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon by drawing on the full breadth of the relevant evidence base. The method follows a rigorous, structured pipeline to ensure transparency and minimise bias.A mapping review (also called a systematic map or evidence map) is a form of systematic review that aims to chart the extent, range, and nature of evidence on a broad topic rather than synthesize findings into a single pooled answer. It categorizes studies by key dimensions — such as intervention type, population, outcome, and study design — and presents the resulting landscape visually and tabularly so that researchers and practitioners can identify clusters of evidence, knowledge gaps, and priorities for future primary research or deeper synthesis.
ScholarGate데이터셋
  1. v1
  2. 2 출처
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 2 출처
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 2 출처
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 2 출처
  3. PUBLISHED

검색으로 이동 슬라이드 다운로드

ScholarGate방법 비교: Scoping Review · Bibliometric Analysis · Integrative Review · Mapping Review. 2026-06-20에 다음에서 검색함: https://scholargate.app/ko/compare