Bandingkan kaedah
Semak kaedah pilihan anda secara bersebelahan; baris yang berbeza akan diserlahkan.
| Analisis Bibliometrik× | Kajian Pemetaan× | Ulasan Naratif× | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bidang | Saintometrik | Saintometrik | Saintometrik |
| Keluarga | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Tahun asal≠ | 1969 (term coined); practice dates to 1920s–1930s | Late 1990s–2000s; major methodological formalization ~2010s | Pre-20th century practice; peer-reviewed methodological guidance from 2000s onward |
| Pengasas≠ | Alan Pritchard (coined term); earlier quantitative work by Paul Otlet (1934) and S. C. Bradford (1934) | Buckland & Gann (1998); formalized by systematic review community (Campbell Collaboration, Collaboration for Environmental Evidence) | Traditional academic practice; formalized discussion by Green, Johnson & Adams (2006) |
| Jenis≠ | Quantitative literature analysis | Systematic evidence mapping methodology | Literature review methodology |
| Sumber perintis≠ | Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348–349. link ↗ | James, K. L., Randall, N. P., & Haddaway, N. R. (2016). A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environmental Evidence, 5(1), 7. DOI ↗ | Green, B. N., Johnson, C. D., & Adams, A. (2006). Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 5(3), 101–117. DOI ↗ |
| Alias | bibliometrics, bibliometric study, bibliometric mapping, publication analysis | evidence map, systematic map, research map, literature map | traditional review, expert review, unsystematic review, narrative synthesis |
| Berkaitan | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| Ringkasan≠ | 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. | 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. | A narrative review is a broad, author-directed synthesis of published literature on a topic, written to summarize, interpret, and contextualize existing knowledge without following the rigorous, pre-registered search and selection protocols that characterize systematic reviews. It draws on the author's expertise to weave disparate sources into a coherent account that identifies themes, debates, and directions for future research. |
| ScholarGateSet data ↗ |
|
|
|