Automating Systematic Literature Review

Felizardo, Katia Romero; Carver, Jeffrey C.

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-32489-6_12

Cited by 21 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Figure 1 abounds in this similitude between software development and RQ Scoping. To a certain extent, SLRs follow a waterfall model: the RQ is generally set at the onset, after some pilot study (Felizardo and Carver 2020;Wolfswinkel et al 2013). Alternatively, RQ Scoping starts with an often incomplete RQ v0 (i.e., not all CGAR constructs are yet decided).…”

Section: Rq Scopingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing research questions in conversation with the literature: operationalization & tool support

Díaz

Contell

2022

Empir Software Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Empirical Software Engineering rests on the understanding of practical problems and their solution counterparts. Frequently, solutions are not absolute but relative to the context where the problem is observed. This tends to imply that the solution and the problem unveil gradually together, and hence, researchers are not always in the position to state the research question (RQ) at the onset. Like software engineers when facing blurred requirements, researchers might not be familiar enough with the problem in the early phases of a research to properly scope their RQs (hereafter referred to as RQ Scoping). Here, the literature may play the role of the stakeholders in Agile methods: keeping the focus on the aspects that are essential (vs. accidental) of the RQ. Informed by Inductive Top-Down Theorizing, this article acknowledges RQ Scoping as iterative and incremental, entailing a conversation between the experimental work and literature reviewing. Yet, for literature reviewing to become “Agile” it is not only required to be driven by the RQ but also to have tool support. Tools might bring transparency and traceability, both factors especially welcome in a scenario characterized by testing (is my RQ relevant?) and adjustment (how can I make my RQ relevant?). Specifically, the advent of the RQ in close relationship with the literature advises for “Agile” literature reviewing to be conducted at the place where the literature is naturally kept: the Reference Management System (e.g., Mendeley). This article introduces the theoretical underpinnings, design principles, proof of concept and evaluation for FRAMEndeley, a Mendeley-integrated utility for RQ Scoping.

show abstract

Section: Rq Scopingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing research questions in conversation with the literature: operationalization & tool support

Díaz

Contell

2022

Empir Software Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to automatic search, snowballing helps researchers determine other references they have missed ( 30 ) due to lack of indexing in the databases searched or incomprehensiveness of search strategy ( 26 ). Snowballing has been defined as "recursively pursuing relevant references cited in already-retrieved literature and adding them to the search results" ( 31 ).…”

Section: Components Of Research Information Literacymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Snowballing has been defined as "recursively pursuing relevant references cited in already-retrieved literature and adding them to the search results" ( 31 ). In snowballing, authors examine references included in other relevant studies (backward snowballing) or papers that cite these studies (forward snowballing) ( 30 ). In addition, following and keeping up with the newest textbooks in the field and searching for books and book chapters may be helpful to ensure the comprehensiveness of the literature search ( 26 ).…”

Section: Components Of Research Information Literacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Publishing in Biomedicine: Information Literacy

Bahadoran

Mirmiran

Kashfi

et al. 2022

Int J Endocrinol Metab

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

: The literature review is integral to the research process, from developing research ideas to disseminating findings. It involves explaining, interpreting, and summarizing published materials around a topic to elaborate a research hypothesis/question, synthesize new concepts, identify knowledge gaps, develop new theories, and identify new research directions. Compelling reading and processing of the literature (i.e., analyzing and synthesizing) and actual writing of the literature (verbal or non-verbal output, e.g., tables and figures) are essential stages of an effective literature review. This article provides a practical guide to conducting an effective literature review. In addition, literature search and evaluation are also briefly discussed.

show abstract

“…Notwithstanding, there are some differences between the two proposals. Felizardo and Carver (2020) do not specify the type of tool to be considered in their research, while our work focuses on AI-based tools. That is, our work is more generalist regarding the application area, while Felizardo and Carver's (2020) focuses on specific reviews in the software engineering area.…”

Section: Background and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another difference has to do with the number of steps proposed for automating the SLR. Felizardo and Carver (2020) propose five; while in our framework four are defined. In the end, this study is more oriented to the supporting tools, thus it presents more technical details than the aforementioned proposals.…”

Section: Background and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A roadmap toward the automatic composition of systematic literature reviews

Júnior

Dutra

2021

Iberoamerican Journal of Science Measurement and Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. This paper presents an overview of existing artificial intelligence tools to produce systematic literature reviews. Furthermore, we propose a general framework resulting from combining these techniques to highlight the challenges and possibilities currently existing in this research area. Design/Methodology/Approach. We undertook a scoping review on the systematic literature review steps to automate them via computational techniques. Results/Discussion. The process of creating a literature review is both creative and technical. The technical part of this process is liable to automation. Based on the literature, we chose to divide this technical part into four steps: searching, screening, extraction, and synthesis. For each one of these steps, we presented practical artificial intelligence techniques to carry them out. In addition, we presented the obstacles encountered in the application of each technique. Conclusion. We proposed a framework for automatically creating systematic literature reviews by combining and placing existing techniques in stages where they possess the greatest potential to be useful. Despite still lacking practical assessment in different areas of knowledge, this proposal indicates ways with the potential to reduce the time-consuming and repetitive work embedded in the systematic literature review process. Originality/Value. The paper presents the current possibilities for automating systematic literature reviews and how they can work together to reduce researchers’ operational workload.

show abstract

Automating Systematic Literature Review

Cited by 21 publications

References 50 publications

Developing research questions in conversation with the literature: operationalization & tool support

Developing research questions in conversation with the literature: operationalization & tool support

Scientific Publishing in Biomedicine: Information Literacy

A roadmap toward the automatic composition of systematic literature reviews

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About