Giới thiệu về cuốn sách này Page 2Giới thiệu về cuốn sách này Giới thiệu về cuốn sách này 1. Price DJS. Little Science, Big Science. New York: Columbia Univ. Press; 1963. Columbia paperback. [Google Scholar] 2. Larsen PO, von Ins M. The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index. Scientometrics. 2010;84(3):575‐603. 10.1007/s11192-010-0202-z [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 3. Eden D. From the editors: replication, meta‐analysis, scientific progress, and AMJ's publication policy. AMJ. 2002;45(5):841‐846. 10.5465/AMJ.2002.7718946 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 4. Naisbitt J, Aburdene P. Megatrends 2000: Ten New Directions for the 1990's. 1st ed. New York: Morrow; 1990. [Google Scholar] 5. Cooper HM. Research Synthesis and Meta‐analysis: A Step‐by‐Step Approach. Applied social research methods series Fifth ed. 2 Los Angeles: SAGE; 2017. [Google Scholar] 6. Littell JH. Conceptual and Practical Classification of Research Reviews and Other Evidence Synthesis Products; 2018. [Google Scholar] 7. Kostoff RN, Shlesinger MF. CAB: citation‐assisted background. Scientometrics. 2005;62(2):199‐212. 10.1007/s11192-005-0014-8 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 8. Littell JH, Corcoran J, Pillai V. Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analysis : Oxford University Press, USA; 2008. https://books.google.at/books?id=UpsRDAAAQBAJ. [Google Scholar] 9. Rethlefsen ML, Farrell AM, Osterhaus Trzasko LC, Brigham TJ. Librarian co‐authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(6):617‐626. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.025 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 10. Bandara W, Furtmueller E, Gorba, Gorbacheva E, Miskon S, Beekhuyzen J. Achieving rigor in literature reviews: insights from qualitative data analysis and tool‐support. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2015;37(8):154‐204. http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol37/iss1/8 [Google Scholar] 11. Meert D, Torabi N, Costella J. Impact of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016;104(4):267‐277. 10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.004 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 12. Koffel JB. Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: a cross‐sectional survey of recent authors. Plos One. 2015;10(5):1‐13. 10.1371/journal.pone.0125931 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 13. Livoreil B, Glanville J, Haddaway NR, et al. Systematic searching for environmental evidence using multiple tools and sources. Environ Evid. 2017;6:1‐14. 10.1186/s13750-017-0099-6 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 14. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions; 2011; Version 5.1.0. 15. Kugley S, Wade A, Thomas J, et al. Searching for studies: GUidelines on information retrieval for Campbell Systematic Reviews; 2016; 1. 16. Pullin A, Frampton G, Livoreil B, Petrokofsky G. Guidelines and Standards for Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management. Version 5.0; 2018. 17. Hug SE, Braendle MP. The coverage of Microsoft Academic: analyzing the publication output of a university. Scientometrics. 2017;113(3):1551‐1571. 10.1007/s11192-017-2535-3 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 18. Khabsa M, Giles CL. The number of scholarly documents on the public web. Plos One. 2014;9(5):1‐6. 10.1371/journal.pone.0093949 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 19. Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB journal. 2008;22(2):338‐342. 10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 20. Orduña‐Malea E, Ayllón JM, Martín‐Martín A, Delgado L‐CE. Methods for estimating the size of Google Scholar. Scientometrics. 2015;104(3):931‐949. 10.1007/s11192-015-1614-6 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 21. Harzing A‐W. A longitudinal study of Google Scholar coverage between 2012 and 2013. Scientometrics. 2014;98(1):565‐575. 10.1007/s11192-013-0975-y [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 22. Meier JJ, Conkling TW. Google Scholar's coverage of the engineering literature: an empirical study. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2008;34(3):196‐201. 10.1016/j.acalib.2008.03.002 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 23. Turnbull D, Berryman J. Relevant search: with applications for Solr and Elasticsearch. Shelter Island New York: Manning Publications Co; 2016. [Google Scholar] 24. Levay P, Ainsworth N, Kettle R, Morgan A. Identifying evidence for public health guidance: a comparison of citation searching with Web of Science and Google Scholar. Res Synth Methods. 2016;7(1):34‐45. 10.1002/jrsm.1158 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 25. Boeker M, Vach W, Motschall E. Google Scholar as replacement for systematic literature searches: good relative recall and precision are not enough. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:1‐12. 10.1186/1471-2288-13-131 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 26. Hjørland B. Classical databases and knowledge organization: a case for Boolean retrieval and human decision‐making during searches. J Assn Inf Sci Tec. 2015;66(8):1559‐1575. 10.1002/asi.23250 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 27. Weber K. Search engine bias In: Lewandowski D, ed. Handbuch Internet‐Suchmaschinen 2. AKA Verlag Heidelberg; 2011:265‐285. [Google Scholar] 28. Vaughan L, Thelwall M. Search engine coverage bias: Evidence and possible causes. Information Processing & Management. 2004;40(4):693‐707. 10.1016/S0306-4573(03)00063-3 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 29. Carmines EG, Zeller RA. Reliability and Validity Assessment. Quantitative applications in the social sciences Beverly Hills, London: Sage Publications; 1979. no.07–017. [Google Scholar] 30. Jacsó P. Google Scholar: the pros and the cons. Online Information Review. 2005;29(2):208‐214. 10.1108/14684520510598066 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 31. Jacsó P. Google Scholar revisited. Online Information Review. 2008;32(1):102‐114. 10.1108/14684520810866010 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 32. Bethel A, Rogers M. A checklist to assess database‐hosting platforms for designing and running searches for systematic reviews. Health Info Libr J. 2014;31(1):43‐53. 10.1111/hir.12054 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 33. Bramer WM, Giustini D, Kramer B, Anderson P. The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2013;2:1‐9. 10.1186/2046-4053-2-115 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 34. Bramer WM, Giustini D, Kramer BMR. Comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of searches for 120 systematic reviews in Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar: a prospective study. Syst Rev. 2016;5:1‐9. 10.1186/s13643-016-0215-7 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 35. Mowshowitz A, Kawaguchi A. Measuring search engine bias. Information Processing & Management. 2005;41(5):1193‐1205. 10.1016/j.ipm.2004.05.005 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 36. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):1‐6. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 37. Gusenbauer M. Google Scholar to overshadow them all? Comparing the sizes of 12 academic search engines and bibliographic databases. Scientometrics. 2019;118(1):177‐214. 10.1007/s11192-018-2958-5 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 38. Ortega JL. Academic Search Engines: A quantitative outlook. Chandos information professional series Oxford, UK: Chandos Publishing/Elsevier; 2014. [Google Scholar] 39. Schöpfel J, Farace DJ. Grey literature In: Bates MJ, Maack MN, eds. Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. / edited by Boca Raton, Fla: CRC; London: Taylor & Francis; 2010:2029–2039.Marcia J. Bates and Mary Niles Maack [Google Scholar] 40. Sampson M, McGowan J. Inquisitio validus Index Medicus: a simple method of validating MEDLINE systematic review searches. Res Synth Methods. 2011;2(2):103‐109. 10.1002/jrsm.40 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 41. Rogers M, Bethel A, Abbott R. Locating qualitative studies in dementia on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO: a comparison of search strategies. Res Synth Methods. 2017;9(2):579‐586. 10.1002/jrsm.1280 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 42. Rader T, Mann M, Stansfield C, Cooper C, Sampson M. Methods for documenting systematic review searches: a discussion of common issues. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5(2):98‐115. 10.1002/jrsm.1097 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 43. O'Mara‐Eves A, Brunton G, McDaid D, Kavanagh J, Oliver S, Thomas J. Techniques for identifying cross‐disciplinary and ‘hard‐to‐detect’ evidence for systematic review. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5(1):50‐59. 10.1002/jrsm.1094 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 44. Atkinson KM, Koenka AC, Sanchez CE, Moshontz H, Cooper H. Reporting standards for literature searches and report inclusion criteria: making research syntheses more transparent and easy to replicate. Res Synth Methods. 2015;6(1):87‐95. 10.1002/jrsm.1127 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 45. Mahood Q, van Eerd D, Irvin E. Searching for grey literature for systematic reviews: challenges and benefits. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5(3):221‐234. 10.1002/jrsm.1106 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 46. Bar‐Ilan J. On the overlap, the precision and estimated recall of search engines. A case study of the query “Erdos”. Scientometrics. 1998;42(2):207‐228. 10.1007/BF02458356 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 47. Kumar BTS, Prakash JN. Precision and relative recall of search engines: a comparative study of Google and Yahoo. Singapore Journal of Library and Information Management. 2009;38:124‐137. [Google Scholar] 48. Shafi SM, Rather R. Precision and recall of five search engines for retrieval of scholarly information in the field of biotechnology. Webology. 2005;2(2):1‐7. [Google Scholar] 49. Usmani TA, Pant D, Bhatt AK. A comparative study of Google and Bing search engines in context of precision and relative recall parameter. International Journal on Computer Science and Engineering (IJCSE). 2012;4(1):21‐34. [Google Scholar] 50. Giustini D, Boulos MNK. Google Scholar is not enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. Online J Public Health Inform. 2013;5(2):1‐10. 10.5210/ojphi.v5i2.4623 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 51. Bramer WM. Variation in number of hits for complex searches in Google Scholar. Journal of the Medical Library Association. 2016;104(2):143‐145. 10.3163/1536-5050.104.2.009 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 52. Brophy J, Bawden D. Is Google enough? Comparison of an internet search engine with academic library resources. Aslib Proceedings. 2005;57(6):498‐512. 10.1108/00012530510634235 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 53. Gehanno J‐F, Rollin L, Darmoni S. Is the coverage of Google Scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2013;13(7):1‐5. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 54. Sturm B, Sunyaev A. If you want your research done right, do you have to do it all yourself? Developing design principles for systematic literature search systems In: Maedche A, Vom Brocke J, Hevner A, eds. Designing the Digital Transformation; 2017:138–146. [Google Scholar] 55. Chu H, Rosenthal M. Search engines for the World Wide Web: a comparative study and evaluation methodology. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 1996;33:127‐135. [Google Scholar] 56. Biolcati‐Rinaldi F, Molteni F, Salini S. Assessing the reliability and validity of Google Scholar indicators. The case of social sciences in Italy In: Bonaccorsi A, ed. The Evaluation of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities: Lessons from the Italian Experience. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018:295‐319. [Google Scholar] 57. Haddaway NR, Collins AM, Coughlin D, Kirk S. The role of Google Scholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching. Plos One. 2015;10(9):1‐17. 10.1371/journal.pone.0138237 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 58. Aune D, Giovannucci E, Boffetta P, et al. Fruit and vegetable intake and the risk of cardiovascular disease, total cancer and all‐cause mortality—a systematic review and dose–response meta‐analysis of prospective studies. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2017;46(3):1029‐1056. 10.1093/ije/dyw319 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 59. Barnett DW, Barnett A, Nathan A, van Cauwenberg J, Cerin E. Built environmental correlates of older adults' total physical activity and walking: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2017;14(1):1‐24. 10.1186/s12966-017-0558-z [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 60. Baur D, Gladstone BP, Burkert F, et al. Effect of antibiotic stewardship on the incidence of infection and colonisation with antibiotic‐resistant bacteria and Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2017;17(9):990‐1001. 10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30325-0 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 61. Bediou B, Adams DM, Mayer RE, Tipton E, Green CS, Bavelier D. Meta‐analysis of action video game impact on perceptual, attentional, and cognitive skills. Psychological Bulletin. 2018;144(1):77‐110. 10.1037/bul0000130 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 62. Bethel MA, Patel RA, Merrill P, et al. Cardiovascular outcomes with glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta‐analysis. Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology. 2018;6(2):105‐113. 10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30412-6 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 63. Bourne RRA, Flaxman SR, Braithwaite T, et al. Magnitude, temporal trends, and projections of the global prevalence of blindness and distance and near vision impairment: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Lancet Global Health. 2017;5(9):E888‐E897. 10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30293-0 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 64. Brunoni AR, Chaimani A, Moffa AH, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for the acute treatment of major depressive episodes a systematic review with network meta‐analysis. Jama Psychiatry. 2017;74(2):143‐152. 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.3644 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 65. Carlbring P, Andersson G, Cuijpers P, Riper H, Hedman‐Lagerlof E. Internet‐based vs. face‐to‐face cognitive behavior therapy for psychiatric and somatic disorders: an updated systematic review and meta‐analysis. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy. 2018;47(1):1‐18. 10.1080/16506073.2017.1401115 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 66. Chu DK, Kim LH‐Y, Young PJ, et al. Mortality and morbidity in acutely ill adults treated with liberal versus conservative oxygen therapy (IOTA): a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Lancet. 2018;391(10131):1693‐1705. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30479-3 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 67. Cipriani A, Furukawa TA, Salanti G, et al. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta‐analysis. Lancet. 2018;391(10128):1357‐1366. 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32802-7 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 68. Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:1‐343. 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 69. Oxford Wordlist. Oxford University Press; 2008. [Google Scholar] 70. Fieschi M, Coiera E, Li YCJ. Medinfo: IOS Press; 2004. https://books.google.at/books?id=bS2xdt7iufgC. [Google Scholar] 71. Meho LI, Yang K. Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 2007;58(13):2105‐2125. 10.1002/asi.20677 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 72. Martín‐Martín A, Orduna‐Malea E, Thelwall M, López‐Cózar ED. Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: a systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of Informetrics. 2018;12(4):1160‐1177. 10.31235/osf.io/42nkm [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 73. Bakkalbasi N, Bauer K, Glover J, Wang L. Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomed Digit Libr. 2006;3(7):1‐8. 10.1186/1742-5581-3-7 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 74. Haddaway NR, Macura B, Whaley P, Pullin AS. ROSES RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses: pro forma, flow‐diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps. Environ Evid. 2018;7(7):1‐8. 10.1186/s13750-018-0121-7 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 75. White RW, Roth RA. Exploratory Search: Beyond the Query‐Response Paradigm. Morgan & Claypool; 2009. [Google Scholar] 76. Jansen BJ, Spink A. In: Langendoerfer P, Droegehorn O, eds. IC'2003An Analysis of Web Documents Retrieved and Viewed; 2003:65‐69. [Google Scholar] 77. Jansen BJ, Spink A. How are we searching the World Wide Web?: a comparison of nine search engine transaction logs. Information Processing & Management. 2006;42(1):248‐263. 10.1016/j.ipm.2004.10.007 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 78. Athukorala K, Głowacka D, Jacucci G, Oulasvirta A, Vreeken J. Is exploratory search different?: a comparison of information search behavior for exploratory and lookup tasks. J Assn Inf Sci Tec. 2016;67(11):2635‐2651. 10.1002/asi.23617 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 79. Hemminger BM, Lu D, Vaughan KTL, Adams SJ. Information seeking behavior of academic scientists. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 2007;58(14):2205‐2225. 10.1002/asi.20686 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 80. Athukorala K, Hoggan E, Lehtiö A, Ruotsalo T, Jacucci G. Information‐seeking behaviors of computer scientists: challenges for electronic literature search tools. Proc. Am. Soc. Info. Sci. Tech. 2013;50(1):1‐11. 10.1002/meet.14505001041 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 81. Nicholas D, Boukacem‐Zeghmouri C, Rodríguez‐Bravo B, et al. Where and how early career researchers find scholarly information. Learned Publishing. 2017;30(1):19‐29. 10.1002/leap.1087 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 82. Niu X, Hemminger BM. A study of factors that affect the information‐seeking behavior of academic scientists. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 2012;63(2):336‐353. 10.1002/asi.21669 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 83. Sapa R, Krakowska M, Janiak M. Information seeking behaviour of mathematicians: scientists and students. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal. 2014;19(4):1‐11. [Google Scholar] 84. Fast KV, Campbell DG. “I still like Google”: University student perceptions of searching OPACs and the web. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2004;41(1):138‐146. 10.1002/meet.1450410116 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 85. Kuiper E, Volman M, Terwel J. Students' use of Web literacy skills and strategies: searching, reading and evaluating Web information. Information Research. 2008;13(3):1‐18. [Google Scholar] 86. Ingwersen P. Cognitive perspectives of information retrieval interaction: elements of a cognitive IR theory. Journal of Documentation. 1996;52(1):3‐50. 10.1108/eb026960 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 87. Wellings S, Casselden B. An exploration into the information‐seeking behaviours of engineers and scientists. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. 2017;9(2):1‐12. 10.1177/0961000617742466 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 88. Rowlands I, Nicholas D, Williams P, et al. The Google generation: the information behaviour of the researcher of the future. AP. 2008;60(4):290‐310. 10.1108/00012530810887953 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 89. Kingsley K, Galbraith GM, Herring M, Stowers E, Stewart T, Kingsley KV. Why not just Google it? An assessment of information literacy skills in a biomedical science curriculum. BMC Med Educ. 2011;11(17):1‐8. 10.1186/1472-6920-11-17 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 90. Kurbanoğlu S, Boustany J, Špiranec S, Grassian E, Mizrachi D, Roy L, eds. Information literacy: moving toward sustainability: Third European conference, ECIL 2015, Tallinn, Estonia, October 19–22, 2015: revised selected papers. Cham, Heidelberg, New York: Springer; 2015. Communications in computer and information science; 552. 91. Kurbanoğlu S, Boustany J, Špiranec S, et al. (Eds). Search Engine Literacy: Information Literacy in the. Workplace: Springer International Publishing; 2018. [Google Scholar] 92. Brindesi H, Monopoli M, Kapidakis S. Information seeking and searching habits of Greek physicists and astronomers: a case study of undergraduate students. Procedia ‐ Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2013;73:785‐793. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.02.119 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 93. Kirschner PA, de Bruyckere P. The myths of the digital native and the multitasker. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2017;67:135‐142. 10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.001 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 94. Georgas H. Google vs. the library (part II): student search patterns and behaviors when using Google and a federated search tool. Portal: Libraries and the Academy. 2014;14(4):503‐532. [Google Scholar] 95. Halevi G, Moed H, Bar‐Ilan J. Suitability of Google Scholar as a source of scientific information and as a source of data for scientific evaluation: review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics. 2017;11(3):823‐834. 10.1016/j.joi.2017.06.005 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] Page 2 Research Synthesis Methods
Quality requirements of systematic searches derived from evidence synthesis guidelines
|
Google scholar would best be categorized as what kind of research tool?
Pos Terkait
Copyright © 2024 ketajaman Inc.
