I’m looking for research and opinions on the implications of missing research during the literature review stage. In other words, what is the impact on the focal piece of research and on the larger research enterprise when past research is missed, especially if 50% or more of relevant research is missed?
So, does an expert have to know about all existing literature in their field, or at least quickly review everything to make sure they know about it? Is it realistic to have expectations like that. What constitutes "the latest developments"?
Interesting question. I have been researching similar questions but inside corporations using 'enterprise search' so from a Human Computer Interaction (HCI) angle. From a practical perspective, missing crucial information that was there at the time of the search certainly impacts the quality of analysis and decision making and does occur inside corporations on a regular basis. There are examples of fatalities caused by missed information in literature reviews (Savulescu and Spriggs 2002) although in general there does not appear to many documented examples on impacts (that I can find of course!).
If 50% or more relevant research is missed out during literature review, then this will result in incorrect research gap analysis and consequently, the validity of the research becomes questionable.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Materials Science
- Materials
- Inorganic Materials
- Metals
- Alloys
- Steel