The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative literature reviews for PhD candidates and other early-career researchers
Open accessAbstract
Universities increasingly expect students to publish during a PhD candidature because it benefits the candidate, supervisor, institution, and wider community. Here, we describe a method successfully used by early-career researchers including PhD candidates to undertake and publish literature reviews – a challenge for researchers new to a field. Our method allows researchers new to a field to systematically analyse existing academic literature to produce a structured quantitative summary of the field. This method is a more straightforward and systematic approach than the traditional ‘narrative method’ common to many student theses. When published, this type of review can also complement existing narrative reviews produced by experts in a field by quantitatively assessing the literature, including identifying research gaps. The method can also be used as the initial step for further analysis, including identifying suitable datasets for meta-analysis. Students report that the method is enabling and rewarding.
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.
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
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006) · doi:10.1002/9780470754887 · Cited by 3,586
Cited by
Past, present and future of Industry 4.0—A systematic literature review and research agenda proposal
Liao, Y., Deschamps, F., Loures, E. D. F. R., & Ramos, L. F. P. (2017) · International Journal of Production Research · doi:10.1080/00207543.2017.1308576 · Cited by 2,036
Mariani, M. M., Perez‐Vega, R., & Wirtz, J. (2022) · Psychology & Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.21619 · Cited by 631
Rousell, D., & Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, A. (2020) · Children's Geographies · doi:10.1080/14733285.2019.1614532 · Cited by 621
Do AI chatbots improve students learning outcomes? Evidence from a meta‐analysis
Wu, R., & Yu, Z. (2024) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13334 · Cited by 576
Circular economy in the building and construction sector: a scientific evolution analysis
Norouzi, M., Chàfer, M., Cabeza, L. F., Jiménez, L., & Boer, D. (2021) · Journal of Building Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102704 · Cited by 482
Metadata
- Authors
- Pickering, C., & Byrne, J.
- Venue
- Higher Education Research & Development
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-11-11
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 534-548
- ISSN
- 0729-4360 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8366
- OpenAlex
- W2012820235
- Cited by
- 1,334
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 17.57
- 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: The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative literature reviews for PhD candidates and other early-career researchers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/07294360.2013.841651
- The paper
- Pickering, C., & Byrne, J. (2014). The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative literature reviews for PhD candidates and other early-career researchers. Higher Education Research & Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.841651
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.