Cited by 18Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychology Research and Bibliometricsscientometrics and bibliometrics research

Revisiones sistematizadas en Ciencias Humanas y Sociales. 2: Búsqueda y Evaluación

Open access
Codina, Lluís·2020·Methodos Anuario de Métodos de Investigación en Comunicación Social, 1

Abstract

The search and evaluation phases are the first two of a systematized revision according to the SALSA framework, such as the metaframework we use here, called Systematized Reviews in Human and Social Sciences or ReSiste-CHS.As we will see, these phases are of crucial importance to ensure that the group of documents that are used, whether to produce a state/s of the art (part of a larger work), or a revision work (self-contained work), correspond to the best scientific-academic evidence available and not, for example, to certain biases of the authors.We will also see that these two phases require a broader context, which is that which constitute the hypotheses or research questions that we wish to answer thanks to a systematic review.The way to prepare the search equations and the selection of sources (databases, etc.) as well as how to evaluate the documents found are part of these two phases.

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 · 10.31009/methodos.2020.i01.06

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 21 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Codina, L.
Corresponding author
Codina, Lluís
Venue
Methodos Anuario de Métodos de Investigación en Comunicación Social, 1
Published
2020-05
Pages
61-72
OpenAlex
W3027006317
Cited by
18
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 10 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1
FWCI
0.98
Type
book chapter
Language
es
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Universitat Pompeu Fabra eBooks (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Keywords
systematic reviews, search strategies, document evaluation, humanities and social sciences, research questions, database selection, publication bias, state of the art

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