Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
80 lines (65 loc) · 9.49 KB

session4c.md

File metadata and controls

80 lines (65 loc) · 9.49 KB
Raw

Stars Badge Forks Badge Pull Requests Badge Issues Badge GitHub contributors Visitors

Session 4c: Mentoring Session - Writing and Publishing SLR

Student info

No. Student Name Supervisor Name
1 AYEMOWA MATTHEW OJO PROF. ROLLIANA IBRAHIM
2 CUI CUI PROF DR. MOHD SHAHRIZAL BIN SUNAR
3 DARMAWAN SATYANANDA TS. DR. SARINA BINTI SULAIMAN
4 ZHANJINGCHUN DR. GOH EG SU
5 JUNIARDI NUR FADILA TS. DR. NUR HALIZA ABDUL WAHAB
6 SAIDU ABUBAKAR PROF. KAMARULNIZAM BIN ABU BAKAR
7 MUHAMMAD HARISQ PROF AZLAN MOHD ZAIN
8 MUHAMMAD ANWAR BIN AHMAD DR. NORHAIDA MOHD SUAIB
9 MUHAMMAD ANWAR HUSSAIN DR. SARINA SULAIMAN
10 MIHRAN ABDULRAHIM MUHAMMED DR. AIDA BINTI ALI
11 NUR ATIQAH BINTI MOHD FUA'AD DR. JOHANNA BINTI AHMAD
12 NUR IRDINA BINTI AHMAD RIFDI PROF DR MOHD SHAHRIZAL BIN SUNAR
13 NURHAFIYAH HAZWANI BINTI HARIS FADZILLAH DR. NUR ZURAIFAH SYAZRAH BINTI OTHMAN
14 NUR SHAHIRAH BINTI JAILANI PROF. MADYA. DR. MOHD. MURTADHA BIN MOHAMAD
15 SITI ZALEHA BINTI HARUN PM. DR. NORAFIDA BTE ITHNIN
16 SIMON CHONG KAI YUEN TS. DR. GOH EG SU
17 MUHAMMAD FARIS FAISAL BIN AHMAD RADDI ASSOC. PROF. ROHAYANTI BINTI HASSAN
18 APRI JUNAIDI DR CHAN WENG HOWE AND ASSOC. PROF. DR. SITI ZAITON

Activities

  1. Write the Report:

    • Documenting the Process: Clearly describe the methodology, including the search strategy, selection criteria, and methods used for data extraction and synthesis.
    • Presenting Findings: Summarize the main results, including the study characteristics and the evidence's strength and limitations⁴.
    • Discussing Conclusions: Interpret the findings in the context of the existing literature, discussing the implications for practice, policy, and future research.
    • Ensuring Transparency: Provide enough detail to allow readers to assess the validity of the findings and the review's reliability⁵.

  2. Publish and Disseminate:

    • Choosing the Right Journal: Select an appropriate journal that reaches the intended audience and aligns with the review's subject area.
    • Following Guidelines: Adhere to reporting guidelines such as PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) for structuring the report.
    • Engaging Stakeholders: Share the findings with policymakers, practitioners, and other stakeholders who can use the information to make informed decisions.
    • Promoting Accessibility: Consider open-access publication options to ensure the review is accessible to a wider audience.

These steps are essential to ensure that the SLR has a real-world impact, guiding evidence-based practice and informing future research directions.

Learning Materials

No Title File
1. Systematic Literature Review Template
2. Li, J., Othman, M. S., Chen, H., & Yusuf, L. M. (2024). A critical review of feature selection methods for machine learning in IoT security. International Journal of Communication Networks and Distributed Systems, 30(3), 264-312.
3. Bauer, A., Coppola, R., Alégroth, E., & Gorschek, T. (2023). Code review guidelines for GUI-based testing artifacts. Information and Software Technology, 163, 107299.
4. De la Torre-López, J., Ramírez, A., & Romero, J. R. (2023). Artificial intelligence to automate the systematic review of scientific literature. Computing, 105(10), 2171–2194.
5. Carbonell-Alcocer, A., Romero-Luis, J., Gertrudix, M., & Wuebben, D. (2023). Datasets on the assessment of the scientific publication’s corpora in circular economy and bioenergy approached from education and communication. Data in Brief, 47, 108958.
6. Marcos Dib, Carlos Alberto Alvares Rocha, Li Weigang, & Allan V. A. Faria. (2022). Systematic Literature Review about Text Classification (Version 1) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7017720
7. Juan Cruz-Benito (2016). Systematic Literature Review & Mapping
8. Busse, C., August, E. (2021). How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal. J Canc Educ 36, 909–913 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z
9. Google Scholar Metrics
10. LaPlaca, P. J., Lindgreen, A., & Vanhamme, J. (2018). How to Write Really Good Articles for Premier Academic Journals. Industrial Marketing Management, 68, 202-209.
11. Kofod-Petersen, A. (2018). How to Do a Structured Literature Review in Computer Science. NTNU
12. Mengist, W., Soromessa, T., & Legese, G. (2020). Method for conducting systematic literature review and meta-analysis for environmental science research. MethodsX, 7.
13. Silva, R. L. S., & Weidt Neiva, F. (2016). Systematic Literature Review in Computer Science - A Practical Guide. Report number: 002/2016. Federal University of Juiz de Fora
14. Carrera-Rivera, A., Ochoa, W., Larrinaga, F., & Lasa, G. (2022). How to conduct a systematic literature review: A quick guide for computer science research. MethodsX, 9, 101895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2022.101895

Contribution 🛠️

Please create an Issue for any improvements, suggestions or errors in the content.

You can also contact me using Linkedin for any other queries or feedback.

Visitors