An Overview of Reviews as a Trend Maker in the Field
The authors consider the methodology basics of reviews as a prospective type of scholarly publications, their taxonomy and most popular review types (narrative reviews, bibliometric reviews, systematic reviews, reviews of reviews, scoping reviews, meta-analysis), as well as specific features of proc...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
L. K. Raitskaya [verfasserIn] E. V. Tikhonova [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch ; Russisch |
| Erschienen: |
2020 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: Высшее образование в России - Moscow Polytechnic University, 2022, 29(2020), 3, Seite 37-57 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:29 ; year:2020 ; number:3 ; pages:37-57 |
| Links: |
Link aufrufen |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-3-37-57 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
DOAJ085186384 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | DOAJ085186384 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240413230106.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 230311s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-3-37-57 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)DOAJ085186384 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)DOAJ43b0421702e54917ab8afda4aa939f61 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng |a rus | ||
| 100 | 0 | |a L. K. Raitskaya |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 3 | |a An Overview of Reviews as a Trend Maker in the Field |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2020 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a The authors consider the methodology basics of reviews as a prospective type of scholarly publications, their taxonomy and most popular review types (narrative reviews, bibliometric reviews, systematic reviews, reviews of reviews, scoping reviews, meta-analysis), as well as specific features of procedures and algorithms for conducting reviews. Top 100 of highly cited reviews on higher education from 2010 to 2019 published in high-ranking peer-reviewed journals and indexed in the international database Scopus is based on the traditional methodology that aims to sample the most essential and influential publications of the kind in a well-represented and unbiased way and to subject the sampled reviews to content, bibliometric, and linguistic analyses. based on the inclusion criteria, keywords and methods of objective selection and sampling of the publications to be reviewed and analyzed, the authors singled out the essential thematic clusters in Top-100 list (educational technologies, university, student, teaching, learning, assessment, etc.) and determined the key directions in the review field of study. Each cluster contains a brief description of the most important aspects and approaches to various topics related to higher education, an analysis of their novelty and existing gaps in the field. According to the rhetoric theory of scholarly text by John Swales named ‘Moves and steps’, the authors offer a uniform rhetoric schema of reviews, commenting on the text components and their contents. Such a schema may serve as a guideline for authors of reviews made up for international peer-reviewed journals. The most popular publications by citations and number of publications entail reviews devoted to the culture of higher education; educational technologies and peculiarities of their application in the new educational landscape; online education as a new dimension of education requiring a special ecosystem; academic ethics of university teachers; soft skills development necessary for successful professional development; academic and scientific libraries as new centers for scientific and academic communication. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a systematic review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a scoping review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a bibliometric review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a theoretical review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a descriptive review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a narrative review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a higher education | |
| 650 | 4 | |a university | |
| 650 | 4 | |a learning | |
| 650 | 4 | |a technologies | |
| 653 | 0 | |a Education | |
| 653 | 0 | |a L | |
| 700 | 0 | |a E. V. Tikhonova |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t Высшее образование в России |d Moscow Polytechnic University, 2022 |g 29(2020), 3, Seite 37-57 |w (DE-627)DOAJ000147923 |x 20720459 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:29 |g year:2020 |g number:3 |g pages:37-57 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-3-37-57 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doaj.org/article/43b0421702e54917ab8afda4aa939f61 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://vovr.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/2139 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/0869-3617 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/2072-0459 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_DOAJ | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 29 |j 2020 |e 3 |h 37-57 | ||
| author_variant |
l k r lkr e v t evt |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:20720459:2020----::nvriwfeiwaarnmk |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2020 |
| publishDate |
2020 |
| allfields |
10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-3-37-57 doi (DE-627)DOAJ085186384 (DE-599)DOAJ43b0421702e54917ab8afda4aa939f61 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng rus L. K. Raitskaya verfasserin aut An Overview of Reviews as a Trend Maker in the Field 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The authors consider the methodology basics of reviews as a prospective type of scholarly publications, their taxonomy and most popular review types (narrative reviews, bibliometric reviews, systematic reviews, reviews of reviews, scoping reviews, meta-analysis), as well as specific features of procedures and algorithms for conducting reviews. Top 100 of highly cited reviews on higher education from 2010 to 2019 published in high-ranking peer-reviewed journals and indexed in the international database Scopus is based on the traditional methodology that aims to sample the most essential and influential publications of the kind in a well-represented and unbiased way and to subject the sampled reviews to content, bibliometric, and linguistic analyses. based on the inclusion criteria, keywords and methods of objective selection and sampling of the publications to be reviewed and analyzed, the authors singled out the essential thematic clusters in Top-100 list (educational technologies, university, student, teaching, learning, assessment, etc.) and determined the key directions in the review field of study. Each cluster contains a brief description of the most important aspects and approaches to various topics related to higher education, an analysis of their novelty and existing gaps in the field. According to the rhetoric theory of scholarly text by John Swales named ‘Moves and steps’, the authors offer a uniform rhetoric schema of reviews, commenting on the text components and their contents. Such a schema may serve as a guideline for authors of reviews made up for international peer-reviewed journals. The most popular publications by citations and number of publications entail reviews devoted to the culture of higher education; educational technologies and peculiarities of their application in the new educational landscape; online education as a new dimension of education requiring a special ecosystem; academic ethics of university teachers; soft skills development necessary for successful professional development; academic and scientific libraries as new centers for scientific and academic communication. review systematic review scoping review bibliometric review theoretical review descriptive review narrative review higher education university learning technologies Education L E. V. Tikhonova verfasserin aut In Высшее образование в России Moscow Polytechnic University, 2022 29(2020), 3, Seite 37-57 (DE-627)DOAJ000147923 20720459 nnns volume:29 year:2020 number:3 pages:37-57 https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-3-37-57 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/43b0421702e54917ab8afda4aa939f61 kostenfrei https://vovr.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/2139 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0869-3617 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2072-0459 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 29 2020 3 37-57 |
| spelling |
10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-3-37-57 doi (DE-627)DOAJ085186384 (DE-599)DOAJ43b0421702e54917ab8afda4aa939f61 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng rus L. K. Raitskaya verfasserin aut An Overview of Reviews as a Trend Maker in the Field 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The authors consider the methodology basics of reviews as a prospective type of scholarly publications, their taxonomy and most popular review types (narrative reviews, bibliometric reviews, systematic reviews, reviews of reviews, scoping reviews, meta-analysis), as well as specific features of procedures and algorithms for conducting reviews. Top 100 of highly cited reviews on higher education from 2010 to 2019 published in high-ranking peer-reviewed journals and indexed in the international database Scopus is based on the traditional methodology that aims to sample the most essential and influential publications of the kind in a well-represented and unbiased way and to subject the sampled reviews to content, bibliometric, and linguistic analyses. based on the inclusion criteria, keywords and methods of objective selection and sampling of the publications to be reviewed and analyzed, the authors singled out the essential thematic clusters in Top-100 list (educational technologies, university, student, teaching, learning, assessment, etc.) and determined the key directions in the review field of study. Each cluster contains a brief description of the most important aspects and approaches to various topics related to higher education, an analysis of their novelty and existing gaps in the field. According to the rhetoric theory of scholarly text by John Swales named ‘Moves and steps’, the authors offer a uniform rhetoric schema of reviews, commenting on the text components and their contents. Such a schema may serve as a guideline for authors of reviews made up for international peer-reviewed journals. The most popular publications by citations and number of publications entail reviews devoted to the culture of higher education; educational technologies and peculiarities of their application in the new educational landscape; online education as a new dimension of education requiring a special ecosystem; academic ethics of university teachers; soft skills development necessary for successful professional development; academic and scientific libraries as new centers for scientific and academic communication. review systematic review scoping review bibliometric review theoretical review descriptive review narrative review higher education university learning technologies Education L E. V. Tikhonova verfasserin aut In Высшее образование в России Moscow Polytechnic University, 2022 29(2020), 3, Seite 37-57 (DE-627)DOAJ000147923 20720459 nnns volume:29 year:2020 number:3 pages:37-57 https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-3-37-57 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/43b0421702e54917ab8afda4aa939f61 kostenfrei https://vovr.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/2139 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0869-3617 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2072-0459 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 29 2020 3 37-57 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-3-37-57 doi (DE-627)DOAJ085186384 (DE-599)DOAJ43b0421702e54917ab8afda4aa939f61 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng rus L. K. Raitskaya verfasserin aut An Overview of Reviews as a Trend Maker in the Field 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The authors consider the methodology basics of reviews as a prospective type of scholarly publications, their taxonomy and most popular review types (narrative reviews, bibliometric reviews, systematic reviews, reviews of reviews, scoping reviews, meta-analysis), as well as specific features of procedures and algorithms for conducting reviews. Top 100 of highly cited reviews on higher education from 2010 to 2019 published in high-ranking peer-reviewed journals and indexed in the international database Scopus is based on the traditional methodology that aims to sample the most essential and influential publications of the kind in a well-represented and unbiased way and to subject the sampled reviews to content, bibliometric, and linguistic analyses. based on the inclusion criteria, keywords and methods of objective selection and sampling of the publications to be reviewed and analyzed, the authors singled out the essential thematic clusters in Top-100 list (educational technologies, university, student, teaching, learning, assessment, etc.) and determined the key directions in the review field of study. Each cluster contains a brief description of the most important aspects and approaches to various topics related to higher education, an analysis of their novelty and existing gaps in the field. According to the rhetoric theory of scholarly text by John Swales named ‘Moves and steps’, the authors offer a uniform rhetoric schema of reviews, commenting on the text components and their contents. Such a schema may serve as a guideline for authors of reviews made up for international peer-reviewed journals. The most popular publications by citations and number of publications entail reviews devoted to the culture of higher education; educational technologies and peculiarities of their application in the new educational landscape; online education as a new dimension of education requiring a special ecosystem; academic ethics of university teachers; soft skills development necessary for successful professional development; academic and scientific libraries as new centers for scientific and academic communication. review systematic review scoping review bibliometric review theoretical review descriptive review narrative review higher education university learning technologies Education L E. V. Tikhonova verfasserin aut In Высшее образование в России Moscow Polytechnic University, 2022 29(2020), 3, Seite 37-57 (DE-627)DOAJ000147923 20720459 nnns volume:29 year:2020 number:3 pages:37-57 https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-3-37-57 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/43b0421702e54917ab8afda4aa939f61 kostenfrei https://vovr.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/2139 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0869-3617 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2072-0459 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 29 2020 3 37-57 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-3-37-57 doi (DE-627)DOAJ085186384 (DE-599)DOAJ43b0421702e54917ab8afda4aa939f61 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng rus L. K. Raitskaya verfasserin aut An Overview of Reviews as a Trend Maker in the Field 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The authors consider the methodology basics of reviews as a prospective type of scholarly publications, their taxonomy and most popular review types (narrative reviews, bibliometric reviews, systematic reviews, reviews of reviews, scoping reviews, meta-analysis), as well as specific features of procedures and algorithms for conducting reviews. Top 100 of highly cited reviews on higher education from 2010 to 2019 published in high-ranking peer-reviewed journals and indexed in the international database Scopus is based on the traditional methodology that aims to sample the most essential and influential publications of the kind in a well-represented and unbiased way and to subject the sampled reviews to content, bibliometric, and linguistic analyses. based on the inclusion criteria, keywords and methods of objective selection and sampling of the publications to be reviewed and analyzed, the authors singled out the essential thematic clusters in Top-100 list (educational technologies, university, student, teaching, learning, assessment, etc.) and determined the key directions in the review field of study. Each cluster contains a brief description of the most important aspects and approaches to various topics related to higher education, an analysis of their novelty and existing gaps in the field. According to the rhetoric theory of scholarly text by John Swales named ‘Moves and steps’, the authors offer a uniform rhetoric schema of reviews, commenting on the text components and their contents. Such a schema may serve as a guideline for authors of reviews made up for international peer-reviewed journals. The most popular publications by citations and number of publications entail reviews devoted to the culture of higher education; educational technologies and peculiarities of their application in the new educational landscape; online education as a new dimension of education requiring a special ecosystem; academic ethics of university teachers; soft skills development necessary for successful professional development; academic and scientific libraries as new centers for scientific and academic communication. review systematic review scoping review bibliometric review theoretical review descriptive review narrative review higher education university learning technologies Education L E. V. Tikhonova verfasserin aut In Высшее образование в России Moscow Polytechnic University, 2022 29(2020), 3, Seite 37-57 (DE-627)DOAJ000147923 20720459 nnns volume:29 year:2020 number:3 pages:37-57 https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-3-37-57 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/43b0421702e54917ab8afda4aa939f61 kostenfrei https://vovr.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/2139 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0869-3617 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2072-0459 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 29 2020 3 37-57 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-3-37-57 doi (DE-627)DOAJ085186384 (DE-599)DOAJ43b0421702e54917ab8afda4aa939f61 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng rus L. K. Raitskaya verfasserin aut An Overview of Reviews as a Trend Maker in the Field 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The authors consider the methodology basics of reviews as a prospective type of scholarly publications, their taxonomy and most popular review types (narrative reviews, bibliometric reviews, systematic reviews, reviews of reviews, scoping reviews, meta-analysis), as well as specific features of procedures and algorithms for conducting reviews. Top 100 of highly cited reviews on higher education from 2010 to 2019 published in high-ranking peer-reviewed journals and indexed in the international database Scopus is based on the traditional methodology that aims to sample the most essential and influential publications of the kind in a well-represented and unbiased way and to subject the sampled reviews to content, bibliometric, and linguistic analyses. based on the inclusion criteria, keywords and methods of objective selection and sampling of the publications to be reviewed and analyzed, the authors singled out the essential thematic clusters in Top-100 list (educational technologies, university, student, teaching, learning, assessment, etc.) and determined the key directions in the review field of study. Each cluster contains a brief description of the most important aspects and approaches to various topics related to higher education, an analysis of their novelty and existing gaps in the field. According to the rhetoric theory of scholarly text by John Swales named ‘Moves and steps’, the authors offer a uniform rhetoric schema of reviews, commenting on the text components and their contents. Such a schema may serve as a guideline for authors of reviews made up for international peer-reviewed journals. The most popular publications by citations and number of publications entail reviews devoted to the culture of higher education; educational technologies and peculiarities of their application in the new educational landscape; online education as a new dimension of education requiring a special ecosystem; academic ethics of university teachers; soft skills development necessary for successful professional development; academic and scientific libraries as new centers for scientific and academic communication. review systematic review scoping review bibliometric review theoretical review descriptive review narrative review higher education university learning technologies Education L E. V. Tikhonova verfasserin aut In Высшее образование в России Moscow Polytechnic University, 2022 29(2020), 3, Seite 37-57 (DE-627)DOAJ000147923 20720459 nnns volume:29 year:2020 number:3 pages:37-57 https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-3-37-57 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/43b0421702e54917ab8afda4aa939f61 kostenfrei https://vovr.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/2139 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0869-3617 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2072-0459 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 29 2020 3 37-57 |
| language |
English Russian |
| source |
In Высшее образование в России 29(2020), 3, Seite 37-57 volume:29 year:2020 number:3 pages:37-57 |
| sourceStr |
In Высшее образование в России 29(2020), 3, Seite 37-57 volume:29 year:2020 number:3 pages:37-57 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
review systematic review scoping review bibliometric review theoretical review descriptive review narrative review higher education university learning technologies Education L |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
| container_title |
Высшее образование в России |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
L. K. Raitskaya @@aut@@ E. V. Tikhonova @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2020-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
DOAJ000147923 |
| id |
DOAJ085186384 |
| language_de |
englisch russisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ085186384</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240413230106.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230311s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-3-37-57</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ085186384</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ43b0421702e54917ab8afda4aa939f61</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield><subfield code="a">rus</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">L. K. Raitskaya</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="3"><subfield code="a">An Overview of Reviews as a Trend Maker in the Field</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The authors consider the methodology basics of reviews as a prospective type of scholarly publications, their taxonomy and most popular review types (narrative reviews, bibliometric reviews, systematic reviews, reviews of reviews, scoping reviews, meta-analysis), as well as specific features of procedures and algorithms for conducting reviews. Top 100 of highly cited reviews on higher education from 2010 to 2019 published in high-ranking peer-reviewed journals and indexed in the international database Scopus is based on the traditional methodology that aims to sample the most essential and influential publications of the kind in a well-represented and unbiased way and to subject the sampled reviews to content, bibliometric, and linguistic analyses. based on the inclusion criteria, keywords and methods of objective selection and sampling of the publications to be reviewed and analyzed, the authors singled out the essential thematic clusters in Top-100 list (educational technologies, university, student, teaching, learning, assessment, etc.) and determined the key directions in the review field of study. Each cluster contains a brief description of the most important aspects and approaches to various topics related to higher education, an analysis of their novelty and existing gaps in the field. According to the rhetoric theory of scholarly text by John Swales named ‘Moves and steps’, the authors offer a uniform rhetoric schema of reviews, commenting on the text components and their contents. Such a schema may serve as a guideline for authors of reviews made up for international peer-reviewed journals. The most popular publications by citations and number of publications entail reviews devoted to the culture of higher education; educational technologies and peculiarities of their application in the new educational landscape; online education as a new dimension of education requiring a special ecosystem; academic ethics of university teachers; soft skills development necessary for successful professional development; academic and scientific libraries as new centers for scientific and academic communication.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">review</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">systematic review</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">scoping review</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">bibliometric review</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">theoretical review</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">descriptive review</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">narrative review</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">higher education</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">university</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">learning</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">technologies</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Education</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">L</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">E. V. Tikhonova</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Высшее образование в России</subfield><subfield code="d">Moscow Polytechnic University, 2022</subfield><subfield code="g">29(2020), 3, Seite 37-57</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)DOAJ000147923</subfield><subfield code="x">20720459</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:29</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:37-57</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-3-37-57</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/43b0421702e54917ab8afda4aa939f61</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://vovr.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/2139</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/0869-3617</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2072-0459</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">29</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="h">37-57</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
L. K. Raitskaya |
| spellingShingle |
L. K. Raitskaya misc review misc systematic review misc scoping review misc bibliometric review misc theoretical review misc descriptive review misc narrative review misc higher education misc university misc learning misc technologies misc Education misc L An Overview of Reviews as a Trend Maker in the Field |
| authorStr |
L. K. Raitskaya |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)DOAJ000147923 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
20720459 |
| topic_title |
An Overview of Reviews as a Trend Maker in the Field review systematic review scoping review bibliometric review theoretical review descriptive review narrative review higher education university learning technologies |
| topic |
misc review misc systematic review misc scoping review misc bibliometric review misc theoretical review misc descriptive review misc narrative review misc higher education misc university misc learning misc technologies misc Education misc L |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc review misc systematic review misc scoping review misc bibliometric review misc theoretical review misc descriptive review misc narrative review misc higher education misc university misc learning misc technologies misc Education misc L |
| topic_browse |
misc review misc systematic review misc scoping review misc bibliometric review misc theoretical review misc descriptive review misc narrative review misc higher education misc university misc learning misc technologies misc Education misc L |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Высшее образование в России |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
DOAJ000147923 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Высшее образование в России |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)DOAJ000147923 |
| title |
An Overview of Reviews as a Trend Maker in the Field |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)DOAJ085186384 (DE-599)DOAJ43b0421702e54917ab8afda4aa939f61 |
| title_full |
An Overview of Reviews as a Trend Maker in the Field |
| author_sort |
L. K. Raitskaya |
| journal |
Высшее образование в России |
| journalStr |
Высшее образование в России |
| lang_code |
eng rus |
| isOA_bool |
true |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2020 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
37 |
| author_browse |
L. K. Raitskaya E. V. Tikhonova |
| container_volume |
29 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
L. K. Raitskaya |
| doi_str_mv |
10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-3-37-57 |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
overview of reviews as a trend maker in the field |
| title_auth |
An Overview of Reviews as a Trend Maker in the Field |
| abstract |
The authors consider the methodology basics of reviews as a prospective type of scholarly publications, their taxonomy and most popular review types (narrative reviews, bibliometric reviews, systematic reviews, reviews of reviews, scoping reviews, meta-analysis), as well as specific features of procedures and algorithms for conducting reviews. Top 100 of highly cited reviews on higher education from 2010 to 2019 published in high-ranking peer-reviewed journals and indexed in the international database Scopus is based on the traditional methodology that aims to sample the most essential and influential publications of the kind in a well-represented and unbiased way and to subject the sampled reviews to content, bibliometric, and linguistic analyses. based on the inclusion criteria, keywords and methods of objective selection and sampling of the publications to be reviewed and analyzed, the authors singled out the essential thematic clusters in Top-100 list (educational technologies, university, student, teaching, learning, assessment, etc.) and determined the key directions in the review field of study. Each cluster contains a brief description of the most important aspects and approaches to various topics related to higher education, an analysis of their novelty and existing gaps in the field. According to the rhetoric theory of scholarly text by John Swales named ‘Moves and steps’, the authors offer a uniform rhetoric schema of reviews, commenting on the text components and their contents. Such a schema may serve as a guideline for authors of reviews made up for international peer-reviewed journals. The most popular publications by citations and number of publications entail reviews devoted to the culture of higher education; educational technologies and peculiarities of their application in the new educational landscape; online education as a new dimension of education requiring a special ecosystem; academic ethics of university teachers; soft skills development necessary for successful professional development; academic and scientific libraries as new centers for scientific and academic communication. |
| abstractGer |
The authors consider the methodology basics of reviews as a prospective type of scholarly publications, their taxonomy and most popular review types (narrative reviews, bibliometric reviews, systematic reviews, reviews of reviews, scoping reviews, meta-analysis), as well as specific features of procedures and algorithms for conducting reviews. Top 100 of highly cited reviews on higher education from 2010 to 2019 published in high-ranking peer-reviewed journals and indexed in the international database Scopus is based on the traditional methodology that aims to sample the most essential and influential publications of the kind in a well-represented and unbiased way and to subject the sampled reviews to content, bibliometric, and linguistic analyses. based on the inclusion criteria, keywords and methods of objective selection and sampling of the publications to be reviewed and analyzed, the authors singled out the essential thematic clusters in Top-100 list (educational technologies, university, student, teaching, learning, assessment, etc.) and determined the key directions in the review field of study. Each cluster contains a brief description of the most important aspects and approaches to various topics related to higher education, an analysis of their novelty and existing gaps in the field. According to the rhetoric theory of scholarly text by John Swales named ‘Moves and steps’, the authors offer a uniform rhetoric schema of reviews, commenting on the text components and their contents. Such a schema may serve as a guideline for authors of reviews made up for international peer-reviewed journals. The most popular publications by citations and number of publications entail reviews devoted to the culture of higher education; educational technologies and peculiarities of their application in the new educational landscape; online education as a new dimension of education requiring a special ecosystem; academic ethics of university teachers; soft skills development necessary for successful professional development; academic and scientific libraries as new centers for scientific and academic communication. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
The authors consider the methodology basics of reviews as a prospective type of scholarly publications, their taxonomy and most popular review types (narrative reviews, bibliometric reviews, systematic reviews, reviews of reviews, scoping reviews, meta-analysis), as well as specific features of procedures and algorithms for conducting reviews. Top 100 of highly cited reviews on higher education from 2010 to 2019 published in high-ranking peer-reviewed journals and indexed in the international database Scopus is based on the traditional methodology that aims to sample the most essential and influential publications of the kind in a well-represented and unbiased way and to subject the sampled reviews to content, bibliometric, and linguistic analyses. based on the inclusion criteria, keywords and methods of objective selection and sampling of the publications to be reviewed and analyzed, the authors singled out the essential thematic clusters in Top-100 list (educational technologies, university, student, teaching, learning, assessment, etc.) and determined the key directions in the review field of study. Each cluster contains a brief description of the most important aspects and approaches to various topics related to higher education, an analysis of their novelty and existing gaps in the field. According to the rhetoric theory of scholarly text by John Swales named ‘Moves and steps’, the authors offer a uniform rhetoric schema of reviews, commenting on the text components and their contents. Such a schema may serve as a guideline for authors of reviews made up for international peer-reviewed journals. The most popular publications by citations and number of publications entail reviews devoted to the culture of higher education; educational technologies and peculiarities of their application in the new educational landscape; online education as a new dimension of education requiring a special ecosystem; academic ethics of university teachers; soft skills development necessary for successful professional development; academic and scientific libraries as new centers for scientific and academic communication. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ |
| container_issue |
3 |
| title_short |
An Overview of Reviews as a Trend Maker in the Field |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-3-37-57 https://doaj.org/article/43b0421702e54917ab8afda4aa939f61 https://vovr.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/2139 https://doaj.org/toc/0869-3617 https://doaj.org/toc/2072-0459 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
E. V. Tikhonova |
| author2Str |
E. V. Tikhonova |
| ppnlink |
DOAJ000147923 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
true |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-3-37-57 |
| up_date |
2024-07-04T02:09:26.160Z |
| _version_ |
1803612550502285312 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ085186384</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240413230106.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230311s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-3-37-57</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ085186384</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ43b0421702e54917ab8afda4aa939f61</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield><subfield code="a">rus</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">L. K. Raitskaya</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="3"><subfield code="a">An Overview of Reviews as a Trend Maker in the Field</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The authors consider the methodology basics of reviews as a prospective type of scholarly publications, their taxonomy and most popular review types (narrative reviews, bibliometric reviews, systematic reviews, reviews of reviews, scoping reviews, meta-analysis), as well as specific features of procedures and algorithms for conducting reviews. Top 100 of highly cited reviews on higher education from 2010 to 2019 published in high-ranking peer-reviewed journals and indexed in the international database Scopus is based on the traditional methodology that aims to sample the most essential and influential publications of the kind in a well-represented and unbiased way and to subject the sampled reviews to content, bibliometric, and linguistic analyses. based on the inclusion criteria, keywords and methods of objective selection and sampling of the publications to be reviewed and analyzed, the authors singled out the essential thematic clusters in Top-100 list (educational technologies, university, student, teaching, learning, assessment, etc.) and determined the key directions in the review field of study. Each cluster contains a brief description of the most important aspects and approaches to various topics related to higher education, an analysis of their novelty and existing gaps in the field. According to the rhetoric theory of scholarly text by John Swales named ‘Moves and steps’, the authors offer a uniform rhetoric schema of reviews, commenting on the text components and their contents. Such a schema may serve as a guideline for authors of reviews made up for international peer-reviewed journals. The most popular publications by citations and number of publications entail reviews devoted to the culture of higher education; educational technologies and peculiarities of their application in the new educational landscape; online education as a new dimension of education requiring a special ecosystem; academic ethics of university teachers; soft skills development necessary for successful professional development; academic and scientific libraries as new centers for scientific and academic communication.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">review</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">systematic review</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">scoping review</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">bibliometric review</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">theoretical review</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">descriptive review</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">narrative review</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">higher education</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">university</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">learning</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">technologies</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Education</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">L</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">E. V. Tikhonova</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Высшее образование в России</subfield><subfield code="d">Moscow Polytechnic University, 2022</subfield><subfield code="g">29(2020), 3, Seite 37-57</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)DOAJ000147923</subfield><subfield code="x">20720459</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:29</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:37-57</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-3-37-57</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/43b0421702e54917ab8afda4aa939f61</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://vovr.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/2139</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/0869-3617</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2072-0459</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">29</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="h">37-57</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.4014387 |