Search across guide titles, topics, keywords, and content throughout the Researcher's Field Guide.
Showing 101–125 of 180 results
Government and institutional reports can contain valuable research evidence, including surveys, evaluations, administrative analyses, and technical studies. Their authority as documents, however, should not be confused with the methodological strength of the evidence they contain.
Read Guide →Searching for unpublished research can reduce the risk of missing important evidence, but it can also require substantial time for uncertain return. The right level of effort depends on your review question, the risk of selective publication, the likely location of missing studies, and whether finding them could realistically change your conclusions.
Read Guide →Finding a citation does not mean the full paper is available in the database where you found it. Verify the reference, search systematically across publisher, repository, and library routes, and do not treat an abstract or another author's description as a substitute for reading the original.
Read Guide →If you know a study only because another paper describes or cites it, you have not consulted the original study. Find and read the original whenever reasonably possible; if you cannot, make the secondary route visible rather than citing the original as though you read it yourself.
Read Guide →Secondary citation makes it explicit that you learned about an original source through another work rather than consulting the original yourself. It can be appropriate when the original genuinely cannot be obtained, but it should usually remain a fallback rather than a shortcut around reading accessible sources.
Read Guide →A paper belongs in your literature review because it helps answer the review question and meets the criteria appropriate to your review, not simply because it appeared in your search. Learn how to make inclusion decisions consistently and transparently.
Read Guide →Finding an influential or highly relevant-looking study outside your eligibility criteria creates a difficult choice. Its importance may justify discussing it, but not automatically including it in the evidence being synthesized.
Read Guide →Duplicate publications can make one study appear to be several independent pieces of evidence. If reviewers fail to recognize the overlap, the same participants and findings may be counted repeatedly and distort the review.
Read Guide →Two reviewers are often used to reduce errors and individual judgment in study selection, but the requirement depends on the review methodology and screening stage. Learn when independent duplicate screening is expected and what “two reviewers” actually means.
Read Guide →Not every paper you find deserves the same amount of attention. Screen its relevance first, then consider whether the evidence, methods, and role it may play in your research justify a deeper reading.
Read Guide →You do not need the same depth of understanding for every research paper you encounter. The more consequential the paper is to your argument, methodology, or interpretation, the more deeply you need to understand the parts on which you rely.
Read Guide →You do not need to scrutinize the methods of every paper during your first pass. Read them closely when your interpretation, citation, methodological decision, or confidence in a finding depends on how the evidence was produced.
Read Guide →The discussion deserves serious attention, but it is the authors' interpretation of the evidence rather than the evidence itself. Compare its major claims with the results, methods, limitations, and plausible alternative explanations before accepting them.
Read Guide →A paper outside your discipline can be difficult even when you are an experienced researcher. Build enough disciplinary context to understand the question, terminology, methods, evidence, and assumptions that matter to why you are reading it.
Read Guide →You do not need to master every unfamiliar method before you can learn from a paper. First identify exactly what you do not understand, determine whether it matters to your purpose, and investigate it deeply enough to interpret the evidence responsibly.
Read Guide →Yes. Publication in a prestigious journal can be a useful signal about selectivity and scholarly attention, but it does not guarantee that an individual study is methodologically strong or that its conclusions are justified.
Read Guide →A paper can change status after publication through a correction, expression of concern, or retraction. Before relying on an important study, check the publisher's current record and relevant scholarly databases rather than assuming the version you found reflects its present status.
Read Guide →A retracted paper should generally not be used as ordinary valid evidence for the claim that led to its retraction. It may still belong in a literature review when the retraction itself, its historical influence, or the consequences of unreliable research are relevant to the review.
Read Guide →Discovering serious problems in an important paper does not automatically tell you what to do next. Verify the problem, determine which claims it affects, reassess the surrounding evidence, and revise your own conclusions in proportion to the damage.
Read Guide →Good literature review notes capture more than a paper's findings. Record enough information to identify the source, understand what the study did and found, evaluate its relevance, and use it accurately when you begin synthesizing the literature.
Read Guide →A literature matrix organizes information from multiple sources so you can compare studies rather than repeatedly rediscover what each paper said. It can be extremely useful, but not every literature review needs an elaborate spreadsheet.
Read Guide →A research paper does not need to belong to only one theme. Treat themes as analytical connections rather than exclusive folders so the same source can contribute to several parts of your synthesis without becoming duplicated or disconnected.
Read Guide →Your notes should make it immediately clear what a source reported, what its authors concluded, and what you inferred yourself. Keeping these layers separate protects source accuracy while giving you room to develop your own analysis.
Read Guide →Ideas can become detached from their sources as notes are summarized, copied, reorganized, and synthesized. Preserve source provenance at the moment you take each note so you can always trace important claims back to the evidence behind them.
Read Guide →Collecting papers is not the same as building a literature review. Give each important source a clear role, record what you may need later, and connect papers to the questions, themes, and arguments that will bring them back into your work.
Read Guide →