The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Methodological Guidance Paper: The Art and Science of Quality Systematic Reviews
Open accessAbstract
The purpose of this article is to overview various challenges that prospective authors of quality systematic reviews should be prepared to address. These challenges pertain to all phases of the review process: from posing a critical question worthy of pursuit and executing a search procedure that is appropriately framed and transparently recorded, to discerning patterns and trends within the resulting data that speak directly to the critical question framing the review. For each of these challenges, suggestions are offered as to how authors might respond so as to enhance the quality of the review process and increase the value of findings for educational research, practice, and policymaking.
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
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research
GLASS, G. V. (1976) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x005010003 · Cited by 4,890 · cited 1×
“By adopting this guideline, authors are not attempting to broadly judge the quality of a research study or document—which Cooper (2010) and others (Glass, 1976; Hattie & Hansford, 1984; Okoli & Schabram, 2010) regard as a precarious venture.”
The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis
(2019) · doi:10.7758/9781610448864 · Cited by 4,553
Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments
(2005) · doi:10.1002/0470870168 · Cited by 2,368
A Guide to Conducting a Systematic Literature Review of Information Systems Research
Okoli, C., & Schabram, K. (2011) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1954824 · Cited by 1,849
Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis: A Step-by-Step Approach
Cooper, H. (2017) · doi:10.4135/9781071878644 · Cited by 1,716
Viechtbauer, W. (2007) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/s11336-006-1450-y · Cited by 1,250
A Motivated Exploration of Motivation Terminology
Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (2000) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1019 · Cited by 916
Self-citationGarousi, V., Felderer, M., & Mäntylä, M. V. (2019) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2018.09.006 · Cited by 831
Cited by
Hennessy, S., D'Angelo, S., McIntyre, N., Koomar, S., Kreimeia, A., Cao, L., Brugha, M., & Zubairi, A. (2022) · Computers and Education Open · doi:10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100080 · Cited by 327
Rowan, L., Bourke, T., L’Estrange, L., Lunn Brownlee, J., Ryan, M., Walker, S., & Churchward, P. (2021) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654320979171 · Cited by 176
(2023) · doi:10.3102/00346543221105550 · Cited by 159
Multimedia Design for Learning: An Overview of Reviews With Meta-Meta-Analysis
Noetel, M., Griffith, S., Delaney, O., Harris, N. R., Sanders, T., Parker, P., del Pozo Cruz, B., & Lonsdale, C. (2022) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543211052329 · Cited by 148
“To ensure it was comprehensive (Alexander, 2020), we generated our search strategy using the titles and abstracts of an initial sample of target systematic reviews (Adesope & Nesbit, 2012; Ginns, 2005; Ginns et al., 2013; Reinwein, 2012; Rey, 2012).”
InfluentialMedia comparison studies dominate comparative research on augmented reality in education
Buchner, J., & Kerres, M. (2023) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104711 · Cited by 133
Metadata
- Authors
- Alexander, P. A.
- Venue
- Review of Educational Research
- Published
- 2020-01-31
- Volume
- 90
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 6-23
- ISSN
- 0034-6543 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-1046
- OpenAlex
- W3003387127
- Cited by
- 462
- References
- 21
- FWCI
- 13.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Methodological Guidance Paper: The Art and Science of Quality Systematic Reviews. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3102/0034654319854352
- The paper
- Alexander, P. A. (2020). Methodological Guidance Paper: The Art and Science of Quality Systematic Reviews. Review of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319854352
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.
