From 6d2bc3d5ce3f3b580b8769e39071b716ed8d4d73 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Luke W. Johnston" Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:50:11 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Built site for gh-pages --- .nojekyll | 2 +- CODE_OF_CONDUCT.pdf | Bin 65695 -> 65695 bytes CONTRIBUTING.pdf | Bin 92287 -> 92287 bytes GOVERNANCE.pdf | Bin 43508 -> 43508 bytes LICENSE.pdf | Bin 82517 -> 82517 bytes README.md | 12 +++++- ROADMAP.pdf | Bin 34806 -> 34806 bytes doc/appendices.pdf | Bin 32465 -> 32465 bytes doc/charting/Alessandroni-2022.pdf | Bin 53741 -> 53741 bytes doc/charting/Bush-2022.pdf | Bin 59919 -> 59919 bytes doc/charting/Dora-2024.pdf | Bin 49657 -> 49657 bytes doc/charting/Grange-2023.pdf | Bin 55800 -> 55800 bytes doc/charting/Kohrs-2023.pdf | Bin 54766 -> 54766 bytes doc/charting/ManyPrimates-2019.pdf | Bin 75148 -> 75148 bytes doc/charting/ManyPrimates-2021.pdf | Bin 55003 -> 55003 bytes doc/charting/Niso-2022.pdf | Bin 63717 -> 63717 bytes doc/charting/Sholler-2019.pdf | Bin 57341 -> 57341 bytes doc/charting/TorresEspin-2021.pdf | Bin 63707 -> 63707 bytes doc/charting/Turoman-2022.pdf | Bin 55013 -> 55013 bytes doc/charting/index.pdf | Bin 82013 -> 82013 bytes doc/paper.html | 67 +++++++++++++++-------------- doc/paper.pdf | Bin 122182 -> 126963 bytes doc/protocol.pdf | Bin 103396 -> 103396 bytes doc/reflections/daniel-ibsen.pdf | Bin 44186 -> 44186 bytes doc/reflections/hannah-chatwin.pdf | Bin 46200 -> 46200 bytes doc/reflections/index.pdf | Bin 29387 -> 29387 bytes doc/reflections/luke-johnston.html | 9 ++++ doc/reflections/luke-johnston.pdf | Bin 42474 -> 44403 bytes doc/reflections/mario-garcia.pdf | Bin 37161 -> 37161 bytes doc/reviews/daniel.pdf | Bin 143725 -> 143725 bytes doc/reviews/index.pdf | Bin 30024 -> 30024 bytes doc/reviews/luke.pdf | Bin 155325 -> 155325 bytes doc/reviews/mario.pdf | Bin 128327 -> 128327 bytes doc/reviews/review-stages.pdf | Bin 105425 -> 105425 bytes doc/reviews/themes.pdf | Bin 63618 -> 63618 bytes index.pdf | Bin 25757 -> 25757 bytes search.json | 18 ++++++-- sitemap.xml | 48 ++++++++++----------- 38 files changed, 94 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-) diff --git a/.nojekyll b/.nojekyll index be47775..fed2988 100644 --- a/.nojekyll +++ b/.nojekyll @@ -1 +1 @@ -f4fd909e \ No newline at end of file +33742831 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.pdf b/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.pdf index f4474d5e62b857e31b183f5f375dc634ed638d2f..60cc6a66ac814bc32a5ee87dc5d2e9ccfd25473a 100644 GIT binary patch delta 209 zcmbQ=$TGi?WdqYU6*Ch{WAi9YE(HaB-~1Gp#FA764HqjT10z!dLjwy#u=HlNZ+=Yd zW>zMaR>tO&tAFUh*&BYW7Sj&$3@<2hO)4>U^zt$?HPiP9uJU%AT=-KRht%eEKNqw4 oVb^ABtEr%YQ!19r&W@|NB(bQZq9`?u%gn^gz?@4})z#k(04lOS9RL6T delta 209 zcmbQ=$TGi?WdqYU6%#{4BaCYDw}i3#zHdT`Fsc*fOY z9+er!xj}}m9=X0@#sLOy0YzEG-j37T5*XES$ZbEIz?jGGhh3wst)_woPN`TfJ3Fr8 YlEk8tilWpsE=xlLQ%f#YRabvE0N)ZivH$=8 delta 196 zcmex=f%X3d)`l&N;<2nIhK5F_(`8~Ar6A1h*0GF!Ozb9BhK5!^i3#zHdT`Fsc*fOY zmWf_j*|`;wzTU|m!JdJ+K?W5@C4tl15*XES$ZbEIz?jGGhh3wst)_woPN`TfJ3Fr8 YlEk8tilWpsE=xlLQ%f#YRabvE08!~YP5=M^ diff --git a/GOVERNANCE.pdf b/GOVERNANCE.pdf index ca9097889638e579804b6623cea0361c712fc025..93246352555c3cf1dc7adcd6b83bcb06f7843cdf 100644 GIT binary patch delta 181 zcmexznd!@ArVZy8s+gG?7#c)raw#b2`{t*(B$lKqXt-Dz85n`YEeyfZn?En~V`4Y6 zGBvO=G??tML=VocU9ws<($rKxJ;%^OTi?Jx!nxEn(J438b+YYJ4eT@ QZfmQlpn+9t^0k$60N_72W&i*H delta 181 zcmexznd!@ArVZy8s+brWni@rEaw#b2`{t*(B$lKqXt-Dz85o%w7#dg@f~7ZqUg*cf zZenF^Uqphu`f(CY}=@w3mvH*7@H*^31 delta 192 zcmccG!g{rZwP6cml9`H$p`npklqQ#gg1&Elic4Zis)B}#m63swsez$^g&|madz%@f z9}~NYm7$@Pk=gXy7L0muj({cOYOySnwB)qRydeJqAD_f@=g>gkv~r`s=@%^-)p5ve Z=d)t`$!>^Uqphu`f(CY}=@w3mvH<>uIn)3E diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index 3addf6e..4897d20 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -55,8 +55,16 @@ The following folders contain: ## Installing and updating sources -You'll need to install all the packages for this project with (while -inside the R Project): +If you install [justfile](https://just.systems/man/en/packages.html), +you can build everything by opening up a Terminal (while having the +working directory be the project) and running: + +``` bash +just build +``` + +Alternatively, you can also do it in R. You'll need to install all the +packages for this project with (while inside the R Project): ``` r # install.packages("renv") diff --git a/ROADMAP.pdf b/ROADMAP.pdf index b5a92310ffc5803491cd7ac3037cb2344a8eb267..72353ee5afa28f7f197f07339055ec4a370612b1 100644 GIT binary patch delta 160 zcmey?&-AUIX@hA4tC^{Rp}}OU1}O+@b7X@b6T6v}seu(xcwLhooc*|IwWz15i@Aw` uVL?DzMaRwf3MJ1h0z?0uE1#gZJ2BDD+iQ+yoDeak{B+)9151Ctyl*H@|IklMVb>Nv9> nc5Sw{nhF{?rDD14?6`_c5{pVIic-_Kj14VJ&AC)nUH#nvy$e9^ delta 209 zcmcckm+|6X#tj1HDkg@8M&?nPTnY;MzWFIGi6yBD8ZK5w21cd^h6WafVCl^!<$g@; zCRT=qRz~KNJ1h0z?0uE1#ZuGtoeIm$Tyhd!{0d5w4MGb_ox{>6*H@|IklMVb>Nv9> nc5Sw{nhF{?rDD14?6`_c5{pVIic-_Kj14VJ&AC)nUH#nv6dXb? diff --git a/doc/charting/Alessandroni-2022.pdf b/doc/charting/Alessandroni-2022.pdf index d2270ac35578284da35fbc7ff417266d0222e0b6..5636477ea94d0ea5e696961500550e2649c0d0ef 100644 GIT binary patch delta 163 zcmaF6nECBu<_%oOSTrK8bT$byS v;!$K|=pP#8SrO@&R^jehKDqLgIu5DL+fKb?GsLdV)>czN1H07Z3m0Vp?SnZx delta 163 zcmaF6nECBu<_%oOSxpQLO-v^9AD4o#HtQYtV`4Y4GBmUT3OAqBgR^&>TrF0W<6&8n vmKRkV6ltCw9^w&|?jIPLKDqLgIu5DL+fKb?GsLdV)>czN1H07Z3m0VpB0xF= diff --git a/doc/charting/Bush-2022.pdf b/doc/charting/Bush-2022.pdf index 54adf020292ba55324ff52333d576dcc20a11720..d9c66ecff3636e5cf6d45fbe000e266e91dcbb88 100644 GIT binary patch delta 188 zcmeCb!rXs_c|-U;Rx?ur1GC97_oN`K&DHn(nApv%Obx7n!WSOs!P%@2SBqtY6;wrJ z1v$G1MWh&86z7GS1*NdBe%=tY)SL28NT*ZI^S}o=tP@b1( v>=720lj@b|Y8eq4P*h$JIN4&iIu5DLrMu1846$powbfM6z%DiU&OuoKWfnP2 delta 163 zcmey_%>1*NdBe%=tR{wrCdQM`ZI^S}o=pW*T5( vSXkhm5t6HK5aJqSSeomdKG|ZoIu5DLrMu1846$powbfM6z%DiU&OuoKt7SGF diff --git a/doc/charting/Grange-2023.pdf b/doc/charting/Grange-2023.pdf index bb4fd32d3b13e761b453bb9ac359d378153d5d9c..fbef805a180769dbce4f14550e40528be910f433 100644 GIT binary patch delta 184 zcmeydnfb?N<_#|ARm@Bc42+{RxfB%iee+XX5=&AQG+eBV42(<-3=J#{!P1*E&igU3 zn^~C}SQ!{k-g{9G&i-_9wU|+AK&Wv+ahYLIV3AvSU}=73j+b`&YDrczQv(B&=^G>&r6A1h=Or2anApv%Obx7n5-Ku`dT>sp4C89C zDua+>zpSV%X9G(E|ID-~ZT*tmEXV0mvW)6DYDrcTLqij@=^G>&r6A1h=Or2anAlCM3=OS-5-Ku`dT>sp4C89C z0N0?(z%Yxfs(?%%qsa1dbM4^B)bi<4vW)6D{BzQ diff --git a/doc/charting/ManyPrimates-2021.pdf b/doc/charting/ManyPrimates-2021.pdf index 034527f9119d0ed2e79ddb1f07bca46eb3f55eec..0ca47138aaf76b06bf95e4c6caadbd7794437b52 100644 GIT binary patch delta 183 zcmcb;mihKt<_!~1tC*P@7??z9aw#b2`{t*(B$lKqXt-Dz85o%w7#dg@f~7ZaJ?+QD zZf0d_U}a!3nd_V$oNa$@wOB?)Mn+InhEr--Kv;^UQ);?dP;x=}r1R=HWH#HL4`4UM RuFKX|Q$Yi})Z~5FWC2UsJ$(QG delta 183 zcmcb;mihKt<_!~1tC$!XnwUjtaw#b2`{t*(B$lKqXt-Dz85o%w7#dg@f~7ZaJ?+QD zZenFa zH?uM|ure^5oc&%8&R+0-wWxWJQ>34dPkFX`m|10*fnQ`mu(8GDgby0nWj4?K@Qd95 Tt0qTVTTKNGtWuMY|BwR!9(X%y delta 181 zcmaF*k@@LI<_(|TsF)ZUnixlEaw#b2`{t*(B$lKqXt-Dz85o%w7#dg@f~7Z$z4c>a zH?cA_v@$WCoc&%8&R+0-wWvj8Zl;G*l~JC1R(@4_VpXMkijT+Sgby0nWj4?K@Qd95 Tt0qTVTTKNGtWuMY|BwR!7oI>K diff --git a/doc/charting/Sholler-2019.pdf b/doc/charting/Sholler-2019.pdf index 16a9ff623823fc214fcf4b3f34361bf87ed0d28e..99754a2bbe4887e4928a2606694557093946f261 100644 GIT binary patch delta 160 zcmeynpZV{8<_*`bu$q}znp#f2eMJhw+WhN^9}~Nom5HSlP}u*v9-Q5BeYI$2W{{Da vQ$(e=QHGyeN`*^>xsO5eWS1Kn*kv|1-q2$=z^WczN1FO{J`}gGlOYJy6 delta 160 zcmeynpZV{8<_*`bu$mYenix*LeMJhw+WhN^9}~NYm7$>(P}u*v9-Q5BeYI#}xczN1FO{J`}gGl5CAv( diff --git a/doc/charting/TorresEspin-2021.pdf b/doc/charting/TorresEspin-2021.pdf index b300c31c32c3cde62036e116536595b6f3a07ae6..24112b05088701b6941cc64b2fcabf4dacc5fe94 100644 GIT binary patch delta 163 zcmccpk@@yV<_)QDSghNU6kmb8I|KvYMkkuKKaTAbsSQg1wYoX8)DaHYpbcCfn93yz8|sx@-#Y8 diff --git a/doc/charting/Turoman-2022.pdf b/doc/charting/Turoman-2022.pdf index a912e3a039cfbb66be7ca017cd8e856bd0ef1dae..7b7aacfd9aae6820e0acc94263163cddb7b4e2a9 100644 GIT binary patch delta 184 zcmaF5mig&g<_+>^RLo2b49uf6xfB%iee+XX5=&AQG+eBV42(<-3=J#{!P1+Z&-gL1 zn^~C}SQ(g4o^ehO&OUo?wOE9+g^PQkkzsjpZb3<{63YT$2R=b>%(H delta 184 zcmaF5mig&g<_+>^R7?yFO)R4{xfB%iee+XX5=&AQG+eBV42(<-3=J#{!P1+Z&-gL1 zn^+kdTA5f*o^ehO&OUo?wU~j2PnCAKcSNvXvQM6OqL-7qVM{63YT$2R=45T~l diff --git a/doc/charting/index.pdf b/doc/charting/index.pdf index 58d287765b169265ce6847fb94d09548e25cd4ce..f2f2d413ab4438724d6ea90de7faeeee343fa50f 100644 GIT binary patch delta 189 zcmccHzGlqcasZ&AHZTAH delta 189 zcmccHzGlqcasYQ}H8cPK diff --git a/doc/paper.html b/doc/paper.html index e5c5e5c..f292d6d 100644 --- a/doc/paper.html +++ b/doc/paper.html @@ -223,45 +223,42 @@

Towards open collaboration in biomedical and health research:

Introduction

+

The time when a single scientist could work alone in a lab and make meaningful progress in their field is long gone. Scientific research in the modern era, especially in certain fields, almost requires working with other people, oftentimes a large number of people. Research questions are increasingly more challenging to answer as they require more time, resources, expertise, and personnel in order to meaningfully answer.

+

With the current needs and limitations such as resources when doing scientific research, collaborations range from those within a single group or lab, to a few researchers across different departments in the same institution, to many researchers and personnel spread across multiple research centers. Collaborations are needed to address basic limitations of working with small or constrained populations, to sharing valuable but expensive equipment, or to assisting with technical expertise or domain knowledge.

+

At the same time, there is also a higher need for science to be more open, higher quality, and more rigorous(2), which necessitates that researchers collaborate with more researchers and with a more diverse group of researchers to fulfill these needs. Open scientific practices, such as open data, open source, and open materials, aim to improve the reliability and accessibility of scientific output to increase the societal impact of the results.

+

There are many hypothetical benefits to openness in science, including in collaboration. For instance:

    -

  • Open science and its role in research

    • -

  • Collaboration and its role in modern research

    -
      -
    • collaboration spanning from lab, to research center to multiple centers
      • -
    • collaboration needed to tackle limitations: small populations, lack of replication, etc
      • -
    • re-inventing discovery: a new way of working in science
      • -
    • +
  • Greater transparency and accountability, because the built-in openness makes it easy to see what was done, how, and why.
    • +
  • Better reproducibility and inspectability, because everything can be easily viewed and can be verified, which is a key tenet of science.
-

Scientific research now almost always requires working with other people.

-

With the growing complexity and specialization in scientific practices and methods, together with globalisation of health and environmental issues, there is a great need for a paradigm shift in research collaboration to be able to tackle these challenges.

-
    -

  • Open collaboration - a combination of two themes

    -
      -
    • definition
      • -
    • big potential in science
      • -
    • but there very few resources and examples of how to integrate open science into collaborations
      • -
    • -
-

We define open collaboration using the definition as found in (1):

+

The intersection between greater collaboration and more openness highlights key challenges researchers face. How can we effectively collaborate together in a way that fulfills the demand for more openness, transparency, and accountability, while at the same time also not substantially impacting our productivity (or ideally improving it). How can we collaborate in an open and transparent way? What are the best practices and tools we can use? What is an ideal collaborative workflow and how close or how far are we from this ideal in reality?

+

From our own personal experience working in the field of health research, we have varied and diverse ways of collaborating. Often the most commonly used approach to collaboration is emailing Word documents around to get feedback and using meetings to discuss and agree on things. Rarely do we systematically examine whether we are following best practices for collaboration nor do we collaborate in an open way following the principles of open science. This lack of a clear standard or approach to collaborating effectively and openly can greatly impact productivity and quality of scientific research. It emphasizes a greater need for a paradigm shift in how we researchers collaborate to be able to effectively and efficiently tackle the challenges of the modern era.

+

For this scoping review, we define open collaboration using the definition as found in (3):

“an online environment that (a) supports the collective production of an artifact (b) through a technologically mediated collaboration platform (c) that presents a low barrier to entry and exit and (d) supports the emergence of persistent but malleable social structures.”

-

With the increasing emphasis on and demand for science to be more open, how we collaborate together is a key component to making science more open from the start of any project. But how do we collaborate in an open and transparent way? What are the best practices and tools we can use? What is an ideal collaborative workflow and how close or far are we from this ideal in reality?

+

Open collaboration has a lot of potential benefits, many of which are the same benefits as seen with open science. For instance, open collaboration can lead to:

+
    +
  • Easier onboarding of new collaborators, since everything is open and easily findable.
    • +
  • Higher collaboration opportunities, because more openness means more visibility as more parts of the scientific workflow are disseminated.
    • +
  • Faster time to dissemination, because the built-in openness makes it easier to disseminate results.
    • +
+

Unfortunately, there are, to our knowledge, very few resources and examples of how to integrate open science into collaborations and how to make collaboration be open.

Aim

This scoping review will focus on current practices of open collaboration and open science in relation to collaboration in the field of biomedical and health research.

The specific aims of this scoping review are to:

-
    +

    1. Provide an overview of current practices of or opinions about research collaboration that follow basic open principles (e.g., transparency, accessibility)

    2. Summarize existing online tools and resources available to improve open collaboration in research

      3. -
+

We’ve expanded on our original aims to include a secondary aim of building an open source R-based pipeline for conducting scoping reviews. The entire source code, as well as text and collaboration workflows, are found on our GitHub repository science-collective/scoping-review.

Methods

-

The full protocol for this scoping review was uploaded to the Open Science Framework (2). As with any research project, things evolve compared to what was originally intended or planned. In this section we briefly re-state what we described in the protocol and especially we describe what was changed from the protocol.

-

This is a scoping review, so we followed the framework described in (4) as well as the guidelines outlined in the PRISMA-ScR statement (5).

+

The full protocol for this scoping review was uploaded to the Open Science Framework (4). As with any research project, things evolve compared to what was originally intended or planned. In this section we briefly re-state what we described in the protocol and especially we describe what was changed from the protocol.

+

This is a scoping review, so we followed the framework described in (6) as well as the guidelines outlined in the PRISMA-ScR statement (7).

Deviations and challenges

We originally aimed to review individual archives that included PubMed, bioRxiv, Scopus, and several others (the full list is in the protocol), and to use R packages with web API connections to each of these sources to programmatically extract the sources we wanted. However we encountered substantial issues that completely changed how we actually found and extracted the sources.

@@ -269,7 +266,7 @@

Deviations and c

The second challenge we encountered was a difference in results between using the web API compared to using the web search interface for some source databases. There were some small differences in search results between the API query compared to the web-based query. We couldn’t identify or understand how these differences happened or way, though they were quite small differences (less than 10 out of thousands of scholarly works from the search results).

The third challenge we had was that some source databases, like the Web of Science or Scopus, didn’t work consistently between the authors. In order to use the web API with the R packages, you need to generate a token for authentication. However, for some authors, the token worked fine, and for others, it didn’t work at all, with no explanation or error message. Given our interest in and aim for reproducibility, since the same code ran differently between authors, we decided to exclude these source databases.

We also originally intended on searching websites, blogs, and other online resources, but it was very difficult to programmatically and systemtically achieve this. So we ended up only searching for scholarly work that were indexed in databases.

-

Given these challenges however, we unintentionally found OpenAlex, which is a public database of scholarly output that aggregates dozens of other source databases into one, easy interface. This resource also has an R package called {openalexR} (6) with a very well designed interface, which simplified or made redundant much of our code we wrote. It also made it unnecessary to use the individual R packages for each source database that we originally listed in the protocol. By using this archive, it resolved all our challenges and barriers we had before. For a full list of where they get their source data from, see their “About the data” page.

+

Given these challenges however, we unintentionally found OpenAlex, which is a public database of scholarly output that aggregates dozens of other source databases into one, easy interface. This resource also has an R package called {openalexR} (8) with a very well designed interface, which simplified or made redundant much of our code we wrote. It also made it unnecessary to use the individual R packages for each source database that we originally listed in the protocol. By using this archive, it resolved all our challenges and barriers we had before. For a full list of where they get their source data from, see their “About the data” page.

Document selection

@@ -287,12 +284,12 @@

Search terms

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

-

Inclusion criteria included any document where open collaboration practices are not the primary focus. We relied on the definition of open collaboration from (1) in determining whether the records were relevant. Any published document with reporting on current open collaboration practices. Any published document with advice, guidance, tools, and/or recommendations for improving open collaboration. Article language in English. Exclusion criteria were documents that do not report on specific open collaboration practices.

+

Inclusion criteria included any document where open collaboration practices are not the primary focus. We relied on the definition of open collaboration from (3) in determining whether the records were relevant. Any published document with reporting on current open collaboration practices. Any published document with advice, guidance, tools, and/or recommendations for improving open collaboration. Article language in English. Exclusion criteria were documents that do not report on specific open collaboration practices.

While we didn’t change our search terms for the initial search and extraction, we found that our search terms were not precise enough and got many irrelevant scholarly works. The full R code to filter down the search results is kept in the R/exlusions.R file on the GitHub repository. For example, we extracted a large number of scholarly works describing surgery such as “open wound”, electronics such as “open circuit”, or environmental such as “open water” that we had to post-process and exclude.

Charting procedure

-

At least two of us extracted data using a standardized and tested template. Data regarding the data source (e.g., author, title, publication year), open collaboration practices, and any other relevant information, will be extracted. Extracted data will be summarized with the descriptive analytical method described in (3), which is aimed at identifying and summarizing different open collaboration practices.

+

At least two of us extracted data using a standardized and tested template. Data regarding the data source (e.g., author, title, publication year), open collaboration practices, and any other relevant information, will be extracted. Extracted data will be summarized with the descriptive analytical method described in (5), which is aimed at identifying and summarizing different open collaboration practices.

Search period

@@ -345,23 +342,29 @@

Contributions

References

+
+
1.
Cole NL, Kormann E, Klebel T, Apartis S, Ross-Hellauer T. The societal impact of open science: A scoping review. Royal Society Open Science. 2024 Jun;11(6).
+
+
+
2.
Umbach G. Open science and the impact of open access, open data, and FAIR publishing principles on data-driven academic research: Towards ever more transparent, accessible, and reproducible academic output? Statistical Journal of the IAOS. 2024 Mar;40(1):59–70.
+
-
1.
Forte A, Lampe C. Defining, understanding, and supporting open collaboration: Lessons from the literature. American Behavioral Scientist. 2013 Jan;57(5):535–47.
+
3.
Forte A, Lampe C. Defining, understanding, and supporting open collaboration: Lessons from the literature. American Behavioral Scientist. 2013 Jan;57(5):535–47.
-
2.
Johnston LW, Urena MG, Chatwin H, Ibsen DB. Towards open collaboration in biomedical and health research: A scoping review. OSF Registries; 2022.
+
4.
Johnston LW, Urena MG, Chatwin H, Ibsen DB. Towards open collaboration in biomedical and health research: A scoping review. OSF Registries; 2022.
-
3.
Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005 Feb;8(1):19–32.
+
5.
Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005 Feb;8(1):19–32.
-
4.
Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science. 2010 Sep;5(1).
+
6.
Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science. 2010 Sep;5(1).
-
5.
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2018 Oct;169(7):467–73.
+
7.
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2018 Oct;169(7):467–73.
-
6.
Aria M, Le T, Cuccurullo C, Belfiore A, Choe J. openalexR: An r-tool for collecting bibliometric data from OpenAlex. The R Journal. 2024 Apr;15(4):167–80.
+
8.
Aria M, Le T, Cuccurullo C, Belfiore A, Choe J. openalexR: An r-tool for collecting bibliometric data from OpenAlex. The R Journal. 2024 Apr;15(4):167–80.