Our roadmap would start from different types of research documents

On the basis of above roadmap, we follow the training notes' direction.

Second type of scientific docs is review paper

Certainly, this group comprises various subtypes. To categorize them effectively, let's closely examine each one, irrespective of the specific scientific field they are commonly associated with, as they have broad applications across different areas of research.

First type of #review_paper

Second type of #review_paper

Various type of #systematic_review
Meta-analysis: In addition to summarizing existing research, meta-analyses statistically combine the results of multiple studies to produce a quantitative estimate of the effect size, providing a more precise assessment of the research question.
Scoping review: These reviews aim to map the existing literature on a particular topic, identifying key concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps, without necessarily conducting a detailed quality assessment or statistical synthesis.
Umbrella review: An umbrella review summarizes findings from multiple systematic reviews on related topics or interventions. It provides a higher-level overview and synthesis of evidence from various systematic reviews.
Realist review: These reviews are often used in social sciences to understand complex interventions or programs by focusing on the underlying theories and mechanisms that make them work in certain contexts.
Network meta-analysis: This advanced form of systematic review and meta-analysis compares multiple interventions for a single condition by analyzing both direct and indirect evidence, allowing for the ranking of interventions.
Rapid review: These reviews are conducted in a shorter time frame compared to traditional systematic reviews. They may involve shortcuts in the process to provide timely evidence for decision-making.
Mixed-methods systematic review: Combines qualitative and quantitative research to address complex research questions. It provides a more holistic view by integrating both types of data.
Living systematic review: This type is continuously updated to incorporate the most recent evidence as it becomes available. It's particularly valuable in fast-moving fields, such as healthcare.
Diagnostic accuracy review: Focused on evaluating the accuracy of diagnostic tests or tools and may use methods like the QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) tool for assessment.

Above is an example of systematic review we published in food pack shelf life journal, impact factor 8

#papermagic. part one.

#papermagic. Second part

#litersturereview. Top tips

@literaturereview. Top tips

Above software use to manage references

[12/13, 1:41 PM] Mohammad Ali Shariati: ▎Aims, Problem Statement, and Objectives

At my institute, it is customary to present the problem statement and objectives in distinct subsections within Chapter 1 of our theses. However, I prefer to discuss the aims, problem statement, and objectives together, as they are closely related. Without a clear articulation of the aims, problem statement, existing gaps, and objectives, readers may struggle to grasp the entirety of the work. 🤔

Different stakeholders hold varying viewpoints on the research project. For instance, when asked why they are undertaking a project, students often provide diplomatic answers. However, a more candid response might reveal that some are primarily motivated by the desire to earn certification or acquire new laboratory skills. 🎓 Engineers typically seek solutions to specific engineering challenges through research. In contrast, social scientists or laypeople might assess a biotechnology project based on its potential societal or sustainable impact. 🌍 Entrepreneurs are usually interested in the commercial applicability of research findings. 💼 Meanwhile, university professors tend to prioritize research novelty, depth of knowledge, and publication potential. 📚

Despite students' best efforts and supervisors' approval of their writing style, there remains a possibility that viva voce examiners may find the thesis lacking simply because each examiner evaluates it through their own lens. There is no universal approach that satisfies everyone. ✍️✨
[12/13, 1:42 PM] Mohammad Ali Shariati: ▎Research Gap

Engaged researchers diligently track the advancements in their respective fields of study. Through extensive reading and analysis, they can identify knowledge gaps—often referred to as research gaps or literature gaps. A research gap signifies an area where there is insufficient information or understanding regarding a specific topic. It can be defined as a facet of scientific inquiry that has not been thoroughly explored by previous researchers. In contrast, a knowledge gap indicates a state in which the scientific community collectively knows little or nothing about a particular subject. 📚

To assert that a knowledge gap exists, it is essential to have thoroughly reviewed and understood the relevant literature. A solid grasp of foundational concepts is crucial for recognizing these gaps. In Chapter 1 of this book, I discussed the meaning of philosophy, emphasizing its role in shaping research questions. One of the core learning outcomes of a PhD program is the ability to produce new knowledge, contributing to the advancement of one's field. 🎓

In Chapter 2, we defined a thesis as the central idea, opinion, or theory proposed by an individual, supported by evidence. PhD and master’s candidates should be adept at identifying knowledge gaps not only within their own research but across the broader scientific community. They must also possess the skills to design experiments that collect data to test their hypotheses and utilize this data to validate their ideas, opinions, or theories. Every aspect of this process must be rigorously interconnected. 🔗

The terms "produce knowledge" or "generate knowledge" may carry different connotations for different individuals. A more precise term might be "discover new knowledge," as scientific knowledge already exists in various forms throughout the universe; it is our role as researchers to uncover and elucidate it. 🌌

To illustrate this concept, consider a metaphor involving a puzzle. Imagine researchers have assembled 950 pieces of a 1000-piece puzzle, leaving 50 pieces unaccounted for. When we generate a new idea, opinion, or theory, we contribute pieces that help complete the picture. If we add five pieces, the total becomes 955, allowing subsequent researchers to continue filling in the gaps. However, there may come a moment when the last missing piece is placed, revealing that the original puzzle was actually part of a much larger set—say, 2000 pieces instead of 1000.

🧩 This scenario exemplifies the nature of knowledge and research: as we delve deeper into our inquiries, we often uncover new complexities and uncharted territories.

This highlights the importance of continuous inquiry and the ever-expanding puzzle of understanding. The more we learn, the more we realize how much remains unknown. Each piece we add not only enhances our understanding but also opens doors to further questions and avenues for exploration. Thus, recognizing and addressing research gaps is vital for the growth of knowledge within any scientific discipline. 🔍✨