The roles of reviews in information transfer

Abstract

Following a general discussion of reviews and of the problems of identification and definition, the literature on user studies, both of reviews and scientific literature in general, is briefly and selectively surveyed. Given the apparent usefulness of reviews and their high cost of production, there has been surprisingly little research into the uses made of reviews. A theoretical framework for future research in this area is proposed. Reviews appear to fulfill two interlocking roles: that of forming an integral part of the development of science (historical functions) and that of supplying individual workers with information about the current development of science and its literature (contemporary functions).

State-of-the-Art des State-of-the-Art

“…Um die genannten praktischen und theoretischen Aufgaben zu bewältigen, hat sich in der Literatur die Forschungsmethode des Reviews herausgebildet [CoHe94a; Coop98; Fink05; LiPi84; Mulr94; TrDS03; Wood77,177f.]. Ein Review untersucht aus der Perspektive einer bestimmten Fragestellung die zu einem Themengebiet relevanten Arbeiten und vorliegenden Erkenntnisse.…”

Information systems and the stimulation of creativity

“…The importance of reviews in information transfer generally has been stressed [68,70,86], and they are of obvious and particular importance in conveying information across disciplinary boundaries. Many existing review journals emphasise their intention of serving the non-specialist reader, but this is easier said than done, particularly when the reader may have an entirely different subject orientation: Epstein reminds us that simple explanations of scientific theories may involve more work than the original development [69].…”

Why is meta analysis neglected by information scientists?

“…This communication system itself is a central object of study in information science (IS). Research on reviews includes Fix et al (1964); (Garfield, 1982;1987a, 1987b; Glass, McGaw, & Smith (1981); Hills (1983); Kochen (1974) : Light & Pillemer (1984); and (Woodward, 1974(Woodward, , 1977. Unfortunately, research of this kind seems to have been decreasing.…”