Сравнение методов
Просматривайте выбранные методы рядом; строки с различиями подсвечены.
| Обзор с использованием библиометрического картирования× | Обзор области применения (Scoping Review)× | |
|---|---|---|
| Область | Наукометрия | Наукометрия |
| Семейство | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Год появления≠ | 2017 (bibliometrix tool); mapping review approach formalised c. 2010s | 2005 |
| Автор метода≠ | Aria & Cuccurullo (bibliometrix, 2017); mapping review methodology developed in evidence synthesis community (~2000s) | Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley |
| Тип≠ | Tool-assisted evidence mapping review | Evidence synthesis review design |
| Основополагающий источник≠ | Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. DOI ↗ | Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. DOI ↗ |
| Другие названия | bibliometrix mapping review, R-bibliometrix evidence map, bibliometric-assisted systematic map, bibliometrix evidence synthesis map | scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map |
| Связанные≠ | 5 | 6 |
| Сводка≠ | A bibliometrix-assisted mapping review combines the structured scope-and-search logic of an evidence mapping review with the analytical power of the bibliometrix R package. Instead of manually categorising studies, the researcher leverages bibliometrix functions — keyword co-occurrence networks, thematic clustering, and yearly trend analysis — to chart the landscape of a research field systematically and at scale, producing an interactive, reproducible evidence map. | 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 данных ↗ |
|
|