In this paper in @NatureEcoEvo we outline 8 major problems that can occur with traditional ways of reviewing the literature, and provide concrete advice on how to avoid them: rdcu.be/b8pp0
Traditional ways of reviewing the literature may be susceptible to bias and end up giving us incorrect conclusions.
This is of particular concern when reviews address key policy- and practice- relevant questions. (2/23)
Systematic reviews aim to maximise rigour and minimise susceptibility to bias using rigorous methods.
But despite these methods being available, poor reviews are still published: these could be improved with a few key processes; some not prohibitively costly. (3/23)
We agree with others that we now face an 'information crisis' (#infodemic). There is SO much published research we need to find and digest.
Doing this reliably requires systematic review approaches, but even then, it's hugely challenging to find all relevant research.
(2/20)
Academic searching/information retrieval is an art form, and there is no 'perfect' search strategy - it takes careful planning and requires substantial skill and training.
These searches are highly complex and must be used in fit-for-purpose bibliographic databases. (3/20)
Problem 1: Their search string is flawed. The authors say they used a 'systematic' search for articles on Google Scholar. However, their search will not work as intended because:
a) GS doesn't support Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT); b) you cannot nest more than one substring (bracketed set of synonyms) in a search; c) they have not nested geographical synonyms within brackets...