Search results

This paper aims to report a study of researchers' preferences in selecting information from cited papers to include in a literature review, and the kinds of transformations and editing applied to the selected information.

This is a part of a larger project to develop an automatic summarization method that emulates human literature review writing behaviour. Research questions were: how are literature reviews written – where do authors select information from, what types of information do they select and how do they transform it? What is the relationship between styles of literature review (integrative and descriptive) and each of these variables (source sections, types of information and types of transformation)? The authors analysed the literature review sections of 20 articles from the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2001‐2008, to answer these questions. Referencing sentences were mapped to 279 source papers to determine the source sentences. The type of information selected, the sections of source papers where the information was taken from, and the types of editing changes made to include in the literature review were analyzed.

Integrative literature reviews contain more research result information and critique, and reference more information from the results and conclusion sections of the source papers. Descriptive literature reviews contain more research method information, and reference more information from the abstract and introduction sections. The most common kind of transformation is the high‐level summary, though descriptive literature reviews have more cut‐pasting, especially for information taken from the abstract. The types of editing – substitutions, insertions and deletions – applied to the source sentences are identified.

The results are useful in the teaching of literature review writing, and indicate ways for automatic summarization systems to emulate human literature review writing.

Though there have been several studies of abstracts and abstracting, there are few studies of literature reviews and literature review writing. Little is known about how writers select information from source papers, integrate it and present it in a literature review. This paper fills some of the gaps.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the macro‐level discourse structure of literature reviews found in information science journal papers, and to identify different styles of literature review writing. Although there have been several studies of human abstracting, there are hardly any studies of how authors construct literature reviews.

This study is carried out in the context of a project to develop a summarization system to generate literature reviews automatically. A coding scheme was developed to annotate the high‐level organization of literature reviews, focusing on the types of information. Two sets of annotations were used to check inter‐coder reliability.

It was found that literature reviews are written in two distinctive styles, with different discourse structures. Descriptive literature reviews summarize individual papers/studies and provide more information on each study, such as research methods, results and interpretation. Integrative literature reviews provide fewer details of individual papers/studies, but focus on ideas and results extracted from these papers. They provide critical summaries of topics, and have a more complex structure of topics and sub‐topics. The reviewer's voice is also more dominant.

The coding scheme is useful for annotating the macro‐level discourse structure of literature reviews, and can be used for studying literature reviews in other fields. The basic characteristics of two styles of literature review writing are identified. The results have provided a foundation for further studies of literature reviews – to identify discourse relations and rhetorical functions employed in literature reviews, and their linguistic expressions.

The study investigates the effect of an uncivil comment made by a party representative on social media and tests whether it can lead to a change in observers' attitude toward the party.

Data are collected from 196 respondents using a scenario-based survey. Proposed model is tested using partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).

It is found that individual's moral identity and issue involvement influence perceived civility of the online post, which in turn affects attitude toward the party as well as the individual. It is observed that for high partisans, effect of perceived civility on attitude toward the party is stronger compared to low partisans. Party's lack of responsiveness to address the uncivil comment from its representative increases party's incivility accountability and lowers the partisan attitude toward the party.

The study presents a novel understanding of how political party representatives can influence the image of the party by engaging in an uncivil discourse on social media. Results support that strong partisan would react more unfavorably indicating that loyalty toward the party cannot be taken for granted.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-03-2020-0084