"Review papers versus empirical papers"
"I copied the arguments below which are for the validity and worthiness of genuine review papers from AfriScience WhatsApp Group E. The arguments are in response to an academic who underrated review papers and regard them as nothing but summary of empirical findings of empirical researchers. He saw review papers which include PHILOSOPHICAL PAPERS papers as worthless and copying of another person's work. I think that in order to prove such inexperienced and uncritical researchers wrong, review writers must always put all their techniques and principles into use. The techniques and principles include critique, creativity, comparison, logical analysis, thoroughness, etc.
Now read the arguments:
"It is absolutely incorrect to say that review papers are summary of other people's published papers. Have you ever written a review paper and get it published in a quality journal? A review paper is more than a summary. It is a scholastic and systematic synthesis of previous findings in a defined research area with the overall aim of giving current knowledge and detection of knowledge gaps needed to be explored in future research efforts. Therefore, it is much more demanding to write a review paper than writing a research paper!Review papers show the strength and weaknesses of previous studies and reveal reasons that might have caused contrasting findings in already published papers. It must discuss what is already known and also highlight what is yet to be known, that is, research gaps to be filled for promoting the frontiers of knowledge and discoveries. This will give a sense of direction and guidance to researchers during design of their studies for a solution-based exploration. For example, in biomedical review papers, researchers would be able to know the level/weight of non-clinical evidence and whether it is enough to venture into clinical studies for clinical evidence that may lead to a better patient treatment. Besides, it is a reservoir of information for young researchers (PhD and Postdocs) who are searching for novel research ideas at the beginning of their studies. This is one of the reasons why review papers are highly cited, especially when it is written by experienced researchers in that discipline. So, a review paper is not just a collection of papers but a demanding academic exercise for a novel research direction that is worthy of citations.
"Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are widely considered the pinnacle of evidence in research. They provide a comprehensive evaluation of existing literature, incorporating data from multiple studies to draw robust conclusions. By pooling data, these studies increase statistical power and enhance generalizability. They also address conflicting findings and explore sources of variation. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses play a crucial role in evidence-based decision making, guiding policy development and informing clinical practice.
"The procedures for systematic literature review and meta analysis can be much stressful as than a research using questionnaires and other laboratory analysis in which instruments give you results insitu. When a procedure like the PRISMA method is employed, selecting the inclusion criteria and the relevant journals is not an easy task. Summary was thought in secondary school and it is not anyway related to literature review."-Anonymous author.
235.
No comments:
Post a Comment