The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Weight of Evidence: a framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence
Open accessAbstract
Knowledge use and production is complex and so also are attempts to judge its quality. Research synthesis is a set of formal processes to determine what is known from research in relation to different research questions and this process requires judgements of the quality and relevance of the research evidence considered. Such judgement can be according to generic standards or be specific to the review question. The judgements interact with other judgements in the review process such as inclusion criteria and search strategies and can be absolute or weighted judgements combined in a Weight of Evidence framework. Judgements also vary depending upon the type of review that can range from statistical meta analysis to meta ethnography. Empirical study of the ways that quality and relevance judgements are made can illuminate the nature of such decisions and their impact on epistemic and other domains of knowledge. Greater clarity about such ideological and theoretical differences can enable greater participative debates about such differences.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Moreover, deliberation allows participants to refine their viewpoints through informed discussions about opinion discrepancies [48, 49, 102].”
From Towards Human-AI Deliberation: Design and Evaluation of LLM-Empowered Deliberative AI for AI-Assisted Decision-Making (2025) · cites this paper as [49]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
Higgins, J. P. T., Green, S., & Ben Van Den, A. (2020) · International Coaching Psychology Review · doi:10.53841/bpsicpr.2020.15.2.123 · Cited by 5,670
Pawson, R. (2006) · doi:10.4135/9781849209120 · Cited by 1,791
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Furlong J., 2006, Review of Australian Research in Education: Counterpoints on the Quality and Impact of Educational Research, 6, 89
- Gough D. A., 2004, Evidence‐based practice in education, 44
- Gough D., poster presented at the NCRM Conference
- Gough D., Marginality and difference in education and beyond
- Gough D., 2002, Social Policy and Society, 1, 225, 10.1017/S147474640200307X · DOI · Paper page
- Gough D. A., 2001, The effect of travel modes on children's mental health, cognitive and social development; a systematic review
- Harden A., ‘Qualitative’ research, systematic reviews and evidence‐informed policy and practice Unpublished Ph.D. thesis
- 10.1080/13645570500155078 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/14748460306693 · DOI
- Pawson R., 2003, Types and quality of knowledge in social care. Knowledge review 3
- 10.3102/0013189X013008006 · doi:10.3102/0013189x013008006 · Paper page
- 10.1016/0895-4356(94)00097-A · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2307/3109916 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Adams, R. J., Smart, P., & Huff, A. S. (2017) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/ijmr.12102 · Cited by 995
Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis as a Practice and Scholarship Tool
Briner, R. B., & Denyer, D. (2012) · The Oxford Handbook of Evidence-Based Management · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199763986.013.0007 · Cited by 835
Creative learning environments in education—A systematic literature review
Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., & Howe, A. (2013) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2012.07.004 · Cited by 825
McCutcheon, K., Lohan, M., Traynor, M., & Martin, D. (2015) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/jan.12509 · Cited by 615
Cooper, C., Booth, A., Varley-Campbell, J., Britten, N., & Garside, R. (2018) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0545-3 · Cited by 561
Metadata
- Authors
- Gough, D.
- Venue
- Research Papers in Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2007-05
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 213-228
- ISSN
- 0267-1522 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-1146
- OpenAlex
- W2087388851
- Cited by
- 830
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 4.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Weight of Evidence: a framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/02671520701296189
- The paper
- Gough, D. (2007). Weight of Evidence: a framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence. Research Papers in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520701296189
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
