CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 272

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Pautasso, Marco·2013·PLoS Computational Biology
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149PMC PMC3715443
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Gasparyan et al. provided guidance for writing narrative reviews; Byrne and Pautasso wrote editorials on improving narrative reviews and presented lists of key features.

    “Gasparyan et al. [13], for example, have provided guidance for writing narrative reviews, and Byrne [14] as well as Pautasso [15] has written, from different angles, thoughtful editorials on improving narrative reviews and presented lists of key features of writing a good review—lists that naturally overlap with SANRA items (e.g., on referencing).”

    From SANRA—a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles (2019) · cites this paper as [15]

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. Rapple C (2011) The role of the critical review article in alleviating information overload. Annual Reviews White Paper. Available: http://www.annualreviews.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1300384004941/Annual_Reviews_WhitePaper_Web_2011.pdf. Accessed May 2013.
  2. TC Erren, 2009, How to surf today's information tsunami: on the craft of effective reading, Med Hypotheses, 73, 278, 10.1016/j.mehy.2009.05.002 · DOI
  3. SE Hampton, 2011, Collaboration and productivity in scientific synthesis, Bioscience, 61, 900, 10.1525/bio.2011.61.11.9 · DOI · Paper page
  4. CM Ketcham, 2007, The impact of review articles, Lab Invest, 87, 1174, 10.1038/labinvest.3700688 · DOI
  5. DN Boote, 2005, Scholars before researchers: on the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation, Educ Res, 34, 3, 10.3102/0013189X034006003 · DOI
  6. Budgen D, Brereton P (2006) Performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Proc 28th Int Conf Software Engineering, ACM New York, NY, USA, pp. 1051–1052. doi:10.1145/1134285.1134500. · DOI
  7. HR Maier, 2013, What constitutes a good literature review and why does its quality matter?, Environ Model Softw, 43, 3, 10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.02.004 · DOI
  8. WJ Sutherland, 2011, Methods for collaboratively identifying research priorities and emerging issues in science and policy, Methods Ecol Evol, 2, 238, 10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00083.x · DOI
  9. LA Maggio, 2011, Reproducibility of literature search reporting in medical education reviews, Acad Med, 86, 1049, 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31822221e7 · DOI · Paper page
  10. CSG Khoo, 2011, Analysis of the macro-level discourse structure of literature reviews, Online Info Rev, 35, 255, 10.1108/14684521111128032 · DOI
  11. RM Rosenfeld, 1996, How to systematically review the medical literature, Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 115, 53, 10.1016/S0194-5998(96)70137-7 · DOI
  12. M Dijkers, 2009, The value of “traditional” reviews in the era of systematic reviewing, Am J Phys Med Rehabil, 88, 423, 10.1097/PHM.0b013e31819c59c6 · DOI
  13. Hart C (1998) Doing a literature review: releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE.
  14. CS Wagner, 2011, Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): a review of the literature, J Informetr, 5, 14, 10.1016/j.joi.2010.06.004 · DOI
  15. R Carnwell, 2001, Strategies for the construction of a critical review of the literature, Nurse Educ Pract, 1, 57, 10.1054/nepr.2001.0008 · DOI
  16. Ridley D (2008) The literature review: a step-by-step guide for students. London: SAGE.
  17. C Kelleher, 2011, Ten guidelines for effective data visualization in scientific publications, Environ Model Softw, 26, 822, 10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.12.006 · DOI
  18. AD Oxman, 1988, Guidelines for reading literature reviews, CMAJ, 138, 697
  19. RM May, 2011, Science as organized scepticism, Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci, 369, 4685, 10.1098/rsta.2011.0177 · DOI
  20. DW Logan, 2010, Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia, PLoS Comput Biol, 6, e1000941, 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000941 · DOI
  21. D Rosenberg, 2003, Early modern information overload, J Hist Ideas, 64, 1, 10.1353/jhi.2003.0017 · DOI
  22. H Bastian, 2010, Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up?, PLoS Med, 7, e1000326, 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326 · DOI · Paper page
  23. M Pautasso, 2012, Publication growth in biological sub-fields: patterns, predictability and sustainability, Sustainability, 4, 3234, 10.3390/su4123234 · DOI
  24. C Michels, 2013, Impact of bibliometric studies on the publication behaviour of authors, Scientometrics
  25. G Tsafnat, 2013, The automation of systematic reviews, BMJ, 346, f139, 10.1136/bmj.f139 · DOI · Paper page
  26. M Pautasso, 2012, Impacts of climate change on plant diseases - opinions and trends, Eur J Plant Pathol, 133, 295, 10.1007/s10658-012-9936-1 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Pautasso, M.
Venue
PLoS Computational Biology
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2013-07-18
Volume
9
Issue
7
Pages
e1003149
ISSN
1553-7358
DOI
10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149
PMC
PMC3715443
Cited by
272
References
6
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (unspecified)

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