Standardized Sampling for Systematic Literature Reviews (STAMP Method): Ensuring Reproducibility and Replicability

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Rogge, Ayanda
Data de Publicação: 2024
Outros Autores: Anter, Luise, Kunze, Deborah, Pomsel, Kristin, Willenbrock, Gregor
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
Texto Completo: https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.7836
Resumo: Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are an effective way of mapping a research field and synthesizing research evidence. However, especially in communication research, SLRs often include diverse theories and methods, which come with a considerable downside in terms of reproducibility and replicability. As a response to this problem, the present article introduces the method of standardized sampling for systematic literature reviews (STAMP). The method is a structured, four-stage approach that is centered around score-based screening decisions. Originating from principles of standardized content analysis, a method common in communication research, and supplementing established guidelines like Cochrane or PRISMA, the STAMP method contributes to more transparent, reproducible, and replicable SLR sampling processes. As we illustrate throughout the article, the method is adaptable to various SLR types. The article also discusses the method’s limitations, such as potential coder effects and comparatively high resource intensity. To facilitate the application of STAMP, we provide a comprehensive guideline via the Open Science Framework that offers a succinct overview for quick reference and includes practical examples for different types of SLRs.
id RCAP_8e28300238dd1db6a0dbcdbe2279c83d
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/7836
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
repository_id_str https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/7160
spelling Standardized Sampling for Systematic Literature Reviews (STAMP Method): Ensuring Reproducibility and Replicabilitycontent analysis; replicability; reproducibility; STAMP method; standardized sampling; systematic literature reviewSystematic literature reviews (SLRs) are an effective way of mapping a research field and synthesizing research evidence. However, especially in communication research, SLRs often include diverse theories and methods, which come with a considerable downside in terms of reproducibility and replicability. As a response to this problem, the present article introduces the method of standardized sampling for systematic literature reviews (STAMP). The method is a structured, four-stage approach that is centered around score-based screening decisions. Originating from principles of standardized content analysis, a method common in communication research, and supplementing established guidelines like Cochrane or PRISMA, the STAMP method contributes to more transparent, reproducible, and replicable SLR sampling processes. As we illustrate throughout the article, the method is adaptable to various SLR types. The article also discusses the method’s limitations, such as potential coder effects and comparatively high resource intensity. To facilitate the application of STAMP, we provide a comprehensive guideline via the Open Science Framework that offers a succinct overview for quick reference and includes practical examples for different types of SLRs.Cogitatio Press2024-04-03info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttps://doi.org/10.17645/mac.7836https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.7836Media and Communication; Vol 12 (2024): Reproducibility and Replicability in Communication Research2183-243910.17645/mac.i429reponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiainstacron:RCAAPenghttps://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/7836https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/7836/3717Copyright (c) 2024 Ayanda Rogge, Luise Anter, Deborah Kunze, Kristin Pomsel, Gregor Willenbrockinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessRogge, AyandaAnter, LuiseKunze, DeborahPomsel, KristinWillenbrock, Gregor2024-06-20T17:45:15Zoai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/7836Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireinfo@rcaap.ptopendoar:https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/71602025-05-28T17:55:54.535903Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Standardized Sampling for Systematic Literature Reviews (STAMP Method): Ensuring Reproducibility and Replicability
title Standardized Sampling for Systematic Literature Reviews (STAMP Method): Ensuring Reproducibility and Replicability
spellingShingle Standardized Sampling for Systematic Literature Reviews (STAMP Method): Ensuring Reproducibility and Replicability
Rogge, Ayanda
content analysis; replicability; reproducibility; STAMP method; standardized sampling; systematic literature review
title_short Standardized Sampling for Systematic Literature Reviews (STAMP Method): Ensuring Reproducibility and Replicability
title_full Standardized Sampling for Systematic Literature Reviews (STAMP Method): Ensuring Reproducibility and Replicability
title_fullStr Standardized Sampling for Systematic Literature Reviews (STAMP Method): Ensuring Reproducibility and Replicability
title_full_unstemmed Standardized Sampling for Systematic Literature Reviews (STAMP Method): Ensuring Reproducibility and Replicability
title_sort Standardized Sampling for Systematic Literature Reviews (STAMP Method): Ensuring Reproducibility and Replicability
author Rogge, Ayanda
author_facet Rogge, Ayanda
Anter, Luise
Kunze, Deborah
Pomsel, Kristin
Willenbrock, Gregor
author_role author
author2 Anter, Luise
Kunze, Deborah
Pomsel, Kristin
Willenbrock, Gregor
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Rogge, Ayanda
Anter, Luise
Kunze, Deborah
Pomsel, Kristin
Willenbrock, Gregor
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv content analysis; replicability; reproducibility; STAMP method; standardized sampling; systematic literature review
topic content analysis; replicability; reproducibility; STAMP method; standardized sampling; systematic literature review
description Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are an effective way of mapping a research field and synthesizing research evidence. However, especially in communication research, SLRs often include diverse theories and methods, which come with a considerable downside in terms of reproducibility and replicability. As a response to this problem, the present article introduces the method of standardized sampling for systematic literature reviews (STAMP). The method is a structured, four-stage approach that is centered around score-based screening decisions. Originating from principles of standardized content analysis, a method common in communication research, and supplementing established guidelines like Cochrane or PRISMA, the STAMP method contributes to more transparent, reproducible, and replicable SLR sampling processes. As we illustrate throughout the article, the method is adaptable to various SLR types. The article also discusses the method’s limitations, such as potential coder effects and comparatively high resource intensity. To facilitate the application of STAMP, we provide a comprehensive guideline via the Open Science Framework that offers a succinct overview for quick reference and includes practical examples for different types of SLRs.
publishDate 2024
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2024-04-03
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.7836
https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.7836
url https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.7836
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/7836
https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/7836/3717
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2024 Ayanda Rogge, Luise Anter, Deborah Kunze, Kristin Pomsel, Gregor Willenbrock
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2024 Ayanda Rogge, Luise Anter, Deborah Kunze, Kristin Pomsel, Gregor Willenbrock
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Cogitatio Press
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Cogitatio Press
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Media and Communication; Vol 12 (2024): Reproducibility and Replicability in Communication Research
2183-2439
10.17645/mac.i429
reponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
collection Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
repository.mail.fl_str_mv info@rcaap.pt
_version_ 1833597065360310272