Сравнение методов
Просматривайте выбранные методы рядом; строки с различиями подсвечены.
| VOSviewer-Assisted Scoping Review× | Обзор области применения (Scoping Review)× | |
|---|---|---|
| Область | Наукометрия | Наукометрия |
| Семейство | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Год появления≠ | 2010s–present | 2005 |
| Автор метода≠ | Combination: Arksey & O'Malley (scoping review, 2005); van Eck & Waltman (VOSviewer, 2010) | Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley |
| Тип≠ | Hybrid review methodology | Evidence synthesis review design |
| Основополагающий источник≠ | van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. 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 | VOSviewer scoping review, bibliometric-enhanced scoping review, VOS-assisted scoping review, science-mapping scoping review | scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map |
| Связанные≠ | 5 | 6 |
| Сводка≠ | A VOSviewer-assisted scoping review integrates the structured, broad-mapping purpose of a scoping review with VOSviewer's bibliometric visualization capabilities. After standard database searching and eligibility screening, the retained records are exported to VOSviewer, which produces co-authorship, keyword co-occurrence, and citation-based cluster maps. These visual outputs guide thematic synthesis, reveal intellectual structure, and make the scope of a field immediately transparent. | 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 ↗ |
|
|