Skip to content

session4a.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
88 lines (71 loc) · 10.1 KB

session4a.md

File metadata and controls

88 lines (71 loc) · 10.1 KB
Raw

Stars Badge Forks Badge Pull Requests Badge Issues Badge GitHub contributors Visitors

Session 4a: Mentoring Session - Search and screen for Literature

Student info

No. Student Name Supervisor Name
1 AYEMOWA MATTHEW OJO PROF. ROLLIANA IBRAHIM
2 CUI CUI PROF DR. MOHD SHAHRIZAL BIN SUNAR
3 DARMAWAN SATYANANDA TS. DR. SARINA BINTI SULAIMAN
4 ZHANJINGCHUN DR. GOH EG SU
5 JUNIARDI NUR FADILA TS. DR. NUR HALIZA ABDUL WAHAB
6 SAIDU ABUBAKAR PROF. KAMARULNIZAM BIN ABU BAKAR
7 MUHAMMAD HARISQ PROF AZLAN MOHD ZAIN
8 MUHAMMAD ANWAR BIN AHMAD DR. NORHAIDA MOHD SUAIB
9 MUHAMMAD ANWAR HUSSAIN DR. SARINA SULAIMAN
10 MIHRAN ABDULRAHIM MUHAMMED DR. AIDA BINTI ALI
11 NUR ATIQAH BINTI MOHD FUA'AD DR. JOHANNA BINTI AHMAD
12 NUR IRDINA BINTI AHMAD RIFDI PROF DR MOHD SHAHRIZAL BIN SUNAR
13 NURHAFIYAH HAZWANI BINTI HARIS FADZILLAH DR. NUR ZURAIFAH SYAZRAH BINTI OTHMAN
14 NUR SHAHIRAH BINTI JAILANI PROF. MADYA. DR. MOHD. MURTADHA BIN MOHAMAD
15 SITI ZALEHA BINTI HARUN PM. DR. NORAFIDA BTE ITHNIN
16 SIMON CHONG KAI YUEN TS. DR. GOH EG SU
17 MUHAMMAD FARIS FAISAL BIN AHMAD RADDI ASSOC. PROF. ROHAYANTI BINTI HASSAN
18 APRI JUNAIDI DR CHAN WENG HOWE AND ASSOC. PROF. DR. SITI ZAITON

Activities

  1. Formulate a Research Question:

    • Using PICO: The PICO framework helps to structure a research question by focusing on the Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes.
    • Clarity and Focus: The question should be clear and focused, often addressing a specific issue or aspect of the topic.
    • Answerable: It should be structured in a way that makes it possible to find an answer through a systematic search and review of the literature.

  2. Develop a Protocol:

    • Review's Methodology: This includes the rationale for the review, hypotheses or objectives, and the criteria for considering studies for the review.
    • Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria: Clearly define what types of studies will be included or excluded, based on factors like study design, population, interventions, outcomes, and publication status.
    • Quality Assurance: The protocol acts as a plan to guide the review and ensure consistency and transparency in the process.

  3. Search for Literature:

    • Comprehensive Search: Use a combination of keywords and database-specific search terms to conduct a thorough search across multiple databases and sources.
    • Documenting the Search: Keep a record of the search strategy, including the databases searched, the date of search, and the number of results obtained.
    • Managing Results: Use tools or software to manage the search results, which can include thousands of studies.

  4. Screen the Literature:

    • Initial Screening: Review titles and abstracts to determine if they meet the inclusion criteria. This is often done by more than one reviewer to reduce bias.
    • Secondary Screening: Review the full texts of selected studies to ensure they meet all the criteria.
    • Record Keeping: Maintain detailed records of the screening process, including reasons for excluding studies.

These steps are foundational to conducting a rigorous and systematic literature review, ensuring that the review is comprehensive, unbiased, and replicable.

Learning Materials

No Title File
1. Systematic Literature Review Template
2. Li, J., Othman, M. S., Chen, H., & Yusuf, L. M. (2024). A critical review of feature selection methods for machine learning in IoT security. International Journal of Communication Networks and Distributed Systems, 30(3), 264-312.
3. Bauer, A., Coppola, R., Alégroth, E., & Gorschek, T. (2023). Code review guidelines for GUI-based testing artifacts. Information and Software Technology, 163, 107299.
4. De la Torre-López, J., Ramírez, A., & Romero, J. R. (2023). Artificial intelligence to automate the systematic review of scientific literature. Computing, 105(10), 2171–2194.
5. Carbonell-Alcocer, A., Romero-Luis, J., Gertrudix, M., & Wuebben, D. (2023). Datasets on the assessment of the scientific publication’s corpora in circular economy and bioenergy approached from education and communication. Data in Brief, 47, 108958.
6. Marcos Dib, Carlos Alberto Alvares Rocha, Li Weigang, & Allan V. A. Faria. (2022). Systematic Literature Review about Text Classification (Version 1) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7017720
7. Juan Cruz-Benito (2016). Systematic Literature Review & Mapping
8. Busse, C., August, E. (2021). How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal. J Canc Educ 36, 909–913 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z
9. Google Scholar Metrics
10. LaPlaca, P. J., Lindgreen, A., & Vanhamme, J. (2018). How to Write Really Good Articles for Premier Academic Journals. Industrial Marketing Management, 68, 202-209.
11. Kofod-Petersen, A. (2018). How to Do a Structured Literature Review in Computer Science. NTNU
12. Mengist, W., Soromessa, T., & Legese, G. (2020). Method for conducting systematic literature review and meta-analysis for environmental science research. MethodsX, 7.
13. Silva, R. L. S., & Weidt Neiva, F. (2016). Systematic Literature Review in Computer Science - A Practical Guide. Report number: 002/2016. Federal University of Juiz de Fora
14. Carrera-Rivera, A., Ochoa, W., Larrinaga, F., & Lasa, G. (2022). How to conduct a systematic literature review: A quick guide for computer science research. MethodsX, 9, 101895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2022.101895

Contribution 🛠️

Please create an Issue for any improvements, suggestions or errors in the content.

You can also contact me using Linkedin for any other queries or feedback.

Visitors