Search results

The purpose of this study is to explore Master’s students’ literature reviews to better understand the literacies required for engaging in complexity in this genre and to inform graduate student pedagogy.

In this qualitative study, data were collected in the form of student literature review papers (23 drafts and 23 final versions) from students attending a research seminar course in an all-course Master’s program. All papers were analyzed for citations patterns, genre awareness and levels of complexity.

Results highlight the nature of complexity in this genre – that this complexity is underpinned by discursive issues such as “truth”, “claims” or “facts” that often mislead novice academic writers, and recognizing that knowledge contested in academic contexts is important to understanding and teaching students about complexity in writing.

One of the most challenging writing tasks graduate students face, is the literature review. Literature reviews require sophisticated conceptual maneuverings. Despite being analytical in nature, many students find it difficult to engage with the layers of complexity required in this genre. How do we make the complexity in literature reviews more visible and accessible? The argument in this paper is that understanding the nature of complexity in literature reviews can enhance writing processes and intentional explicit pedagogy.

Systematic literature review (SLR) papers have gained significant importance during the last years as many reputed journals have asked for literature review submissions from the authors. However, at the same time, authors are experiencing a high number of desk rejections because of a lack of quality and its contribution to the existing body of knowledge. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to offer guidance to researchers who intend to communicate SLR papers in top-rated journals. We attempt to offer a guide to buddy researchers who plan to write SLR papers. This purpose is achieved by clearly stating how the traditional review method is different from SLR, when and how can each type of literature review method be used, writing effective motivation of a review paper and finally how to synthesize the available literature. We have also presented a few suggestions for writing an impactful SLR in the last. Overall, this chapter serves as a guide to various aspirants of SLR paper to understand the prerequisites of an SLR paper and offers deep insights to bring in more clarity before writing an SLR paper, thereby reducing the chances of desk rejection.

The study responds to the common concerns of authors, reviewers, and editors on writing and publishing high-quality literature review (LR) studies. First, we evolved the background and decision elements on the five parameters of a quality LR paper: Planning, Operationalizing, Writing, Embedding, and Reflecting (POWER), from the editorials and guiding literature. Statistical procedure and refinement of 256 responses from writers, reviewers, and editors revealed 37 decision elements. Finally, a multicriteria-decision-making approach was applied to the detailed responses from the lead editors of ABDC, Scopus, ABS, and WoS journals, and 31 decision elements were found strong enough to represent these five parameters on the quality of LR studies. All five parameters are found important to be considered. However, a high priority is suggested for embedding (the results coming out of the review) and operationalizing (the process of conducting the review), whereas reflection, writing, and planning of LR papers still remain important. The purpose of the POWER framework is to overcome the challenges and decision dilemmas faced by writers and decision-makers. The POWER framework acts as a guiding tool to conduct LR studies in general and business management scholars in specific ways. In addition, this study provides a checklist (Table 6) and template (Appendix A1) of a quality LR study to its stakeholders.

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 aim of this study is to find out the most common types of literature review and the accuracy of citing information related to topic in question among Saudi English as a Foreign Language (EFL) postgraduate students at Al-Baha University. This study also aims at revealing the quality of the literature review written by researchers.

This qualitative study used content analysis to investigate 15 unpublished Master of Arts (MA) dissertations written on EFL of Saudi context. They were analyzed qualitatively using criteria modified from Snyder's (2019) model which is considered a potential method for making theoretical and practical contributions of literature review.

The findings of the study showed that students favored the systematic review over the integrative. Additionally, data showed that students were lacking in paraphrasing and organizing cited information coherently and appropriately. Moreover, students' performance was better in design, conduct, and data abstraction and analysis criterion, whereas they seemed rather weak in structuring and writing the review criteria.

The significance of the study is to provide researchers with methodological guidance and reference to write a comprehensive and appropriate literature review. Based on the findings, this study concluded with some implications that aim to assist researchers in carrying out their studies professionally. Furthermore, the findings provide decision-makers in higher education institutions with important practical implications. In light of the study's findings, it is suggested to carry out further research investigating postgraduate students to find out their perceptions and attitudes regarding the quality standards of scientific research writing and the paraphrasing strategies.

To overcome and solve the problems of all the research community, in this chapter we offer everyone to focus on the Planning, Operationalizing, Writing, Embedding, and Reflecting (POWER) framework of conducting literature review. The framework guides the scholarly community on how to create and evaluate literature review papers to overcome the merit dilemma on the contribution made by review papers. With the sole focus toward review of literature, we are pleased to present “Review of Management Literature (RoML)” and introducing the first volume. This chapter and volume answers the present tensions accruing in the existing literature as well as present strategies on bridging the gaps. The chapters included in the first volume belong to emerging research areas such as marketing, human resources, international businesses, supply chain management, artificial neural network, luxury consumption, financial technology (FINTECH), mergers and acquisition, social media platforms like Instagram, cultural diversity, services, sustainability, quality 4.0, entrepreneurial ecosystem, and dividend decisions. The first volume is going to be useful to scholars in exploring future research areas across business management disciplines.

This paper aims to present recently published resources on information literacy and library instruction providing an introductory overview and a selected annotated bibliography of publications covering all library types.

This paper introduces and annotates English-language periodical articles, monographs, dissertations and other materials on library instruction and information literacy published in 2016.

The paper provides information about each source, describes the characteristics of current scholarship and highlights sources that contain unique or significant scholarly contributions.

The information may be used by librarians and interested parties as a quick reference to literature on library instruction and information literacy.

This study aims to examine entry-level PhD students’ experiences with participating in Critical Friends, a peer review protocol, used to support learning the threshold concept of literature review. It also sought to determine if, and how, students used the peer review protocol electively during their first year of doctoral study.

The authors used a sequential, QUAL-qual mixed-method design to guide the study. Reflective learning journals, surveys and interviews were collected from three cohorts of PhD students (N = 18).

Thematic analysis revealed that giving and receiving writing critique was uncomfortable for these novice peer reviewers and many described emotional disciplining associated with vulnerability. Critical Friends offered a safe space to begin mastery of the literature review and begin transforming new researcher and writer identities. While Critical Friends was a positive experience for students, they struggled implementing the protocol on their own following the course.

These findings support the need for faculty to embed peer review opportunities in courses during the first year to facilitate role modeling and mentoring. The findings also demonstrate the need to engage students with peer review early in the program to increase comfort, cultivate student resiliency for accepting critical feedback and build capacity for students to learn with and from others.

This paper advocates for the use of peer review practices early in the doctoral study to promote the development of researcher identity and positioning within the research community.

Practical and useful guidance is given to those undertaking management research; and advice is given on how to manage the practicalities of the research project. Particular emphasis is placed on applied and action research culminating in implementation of findings within an organisational setting. A description of the aims of management research is followed by advice on the selection of a research subject and the importance of the planning stage. Details of the processes involved in gathering the relevant information; its careful analysis; and the presentation of the findings in a readable, structured and coherent form are presented. Finally, suggestions on how to implement the research findings within an organisation are offered, as well as advice on the publication of results.

This paper presents recently published resources on library instruction and information literacy. It provides an introductory overview and a selected annotated bibliography of publications covering various library types, study populations and research contexts. The selected bibliography is useful to efficiently keep up with trends in library instruction for busy practitioners, library science students and those wishing to learn about information literacy in other contexts.

This article annotates 424 English-language periodical articles, monographs, dissertations, theses and reports on library instruction and information literacy published in 2021. The sources were selected from the EBSCO platform for Library, Information Science, and Technology Abstracts (LISTA), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and WorldCat, published in 2021 that included the terms “information literacy,” “library instruction,” or “information fluency” in the title, abstract or keywords. The sources were organized in Zotero. Annotations summarize the source, focusing on the findings or implications. Each source was categorized into one of seven pre-determined categories: K-12 Education, Children and Adolescents; Academic and Professional Programs; Everyday Life, Community, and the Workplace; Libraries and Health Information Literacy; Multiple Library Types; and Other Information Literacy Research and Theory.

The paper provides a brief description of 424 sources and highlights sources that contain unique or significant scholarly contributions.

The information may be used by librarians, researchers and anyone interested as a quick and comprehensive reference to literature on library instruction and information literacy within 2021.