Evidentiary function of systematic reviews of scientific literature: Epistemological foundations and methodological derivatives

Author:

Babich N. S.1

Affiliation:

1. Institute of Sociology, Federal Research Sociological Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Abstract

The author analyzes implicit epistemological assumptions of the modern systematic reviews of scientific literatures that usually are left unconsidered or problematized. The foundations for building the image of scientific communication as representative, clearly cut and easily analyzed reflection of efficient search for and spread of truth which approaching is characterized by increased explorers’ consent. Generalization of this communication brings the evidential effect to advance argument in scientific discussions. However, a series of conditions for adequate conversion and «migration» of published conclusions into the conclusions of systematic review has to be provided to preserve evidential effect in summarizing analysis. The essential components of systematic reviewing methodology comprise: setting the task of obtaining quantified results; selection criteria for unambiguous correspondence between the model of process under scientific investigation and totality of publications; representative observation of relevant publications and making conclusions based on comparative evidential effect of research and consent level achieved. The systematic reviews compliant with the above requirements make them a powerful instrument of evidence in the social sciences, biology and medicine.

Publisher

State Public Scientific-Technical Library

Reference37 articles.

1. Lavrik O. L., Kalyuzhnaya T. A., Pleshakova M. A. Sistematicheskiy obzor kak vid obzorno-analiticheskih produktov / O. L. Lavrik, T. A. Kalyuzhnaya, M. A. Pleshakova // Bibliosfera. – 2019. – № 2. – S. 33–51.

2. Lavrik O. L., Kalyuzhnaya T. A., Pleshakova M. A. Informatsionno-analiticheskie produkty v nauchnyh bibliotekah dlya informatsionnogo obespecheniya NIR / O. L. Lavrik, T. A. Kalyuzhnaya, M. A. Pleshakova // Vestn. Tom. gos. un-ta. Kulturologiya i iskusstvovedenie. – 2018. – № 4. – S. 186–201.

3. Vlasov V. V. Ostorozhno: chelovek! Sistematicheskiy obzor kak sredstvo ot opasnyh vmeshatelstv / V. V. Vlasov // Chelovek. – 2005. – № 3. – S. 121–129.

4. Marsh K. The role of review and synthesis methods in decision models / K. Marsh // Evidence-based decisions and economics: health care, social welfare, education and criminal justice. – Oxford : Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. – P. 8–22.

5. Khan K., Kunz R., Kleijnen J., Antes G. Systematic reviews to support evidencebased medicine / K. Khan, R. Kunz, J. Kleijnen, G. Antes. – London : CRC press, 2011. – 224 p.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3