Review literature: characteristics, sources and output in 1972

Abstract

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books Downloaded by University College London At 00:33 24 June 2016 (PT)and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.Within the context of providing an indexing service to the review literature in science and technology, reviews are defined and six types of review literature described. The sources of review literature are examined and an attempt made to estimate the current annual output of reviews in specialist review serials, primary journals, conference proceedings, books, reports and secondary services. The total output of 'good' quality reviews from these sources in 1972 is estimated to be 22,000. The characteristics of review literature are examined for the purposes of automatic identification; a method of identifying reviews by using the number of references was found to be between 75 and 85 per cent effective at the 40 references level.

What Synthetic Biology Aims At: Review Articles as Sites for Constructing and Narrating an Emerging Field

“…What is known from the literature so far is that there is no such thing as the scientific review (Azar and Hashim 2014;Virgo 1971;Woodward 1974). Rather, one finds different forms and types of review articles, which have been mainly established in the twentieth century.…”

“…Ten years later, Judy Virgo (1971, p. 279) complained about the rising number of these articles and the fact that one could hardly control this vastly increasing genre of scholarly writing. Linguistic research into the different practices of writing established that the typology of review articles in science can be further differentiated: Woodward (1974) has found that there are interpretive, critical, speculative, or even popular review articles. According to Azar and Hashim (2014), these findings show that review articles can appear in various forms, and their writing can comprise very different academic practices such as evaluating, problematizing, or reporting (ibid., p. 77).…”

Book reviews

“…This communication system itself is a central object of study in information science (IS). Research on reviews includes Fix et al (1964); Garfield (1982; 1987a, 1987b); Glass, McGaw, & Smith (1981); Hills (1983); Kochen (1974): Light & Pillemer (1984); and Woodward (1974, 1977). Unfortunately, research of this kind seems to have been decreasing.…”

Why is meta analysis neglected by information scientists?

“…This communication system itself is a central object of study in information science (IS). Research on reviews includes Fix et al (1964); (Garfield, 1982;1987a, 1987b; Glass, McGaw, & Smith (1981); Hills (1983); Kochen (1974) : Light & Pillemer (1984); and (Woodward, 1974(Woodward, , 1977. Unfortunately, research of this kind seems to have been decreasing.…”