T number of scientific articles published, regardless of the academic discipline, has dramatically increased in the last decades. The publication in impact journals is considered one of the KPI (key performance indicators) in research centres and one of the measures to get funds. Moreover, in the current information society, most of the published works are available in online journals, repositories, databases, so researchers have access to them. One of the first tasks before conducting a research, regardless of the field of study, is to identify related works and previous studies as a way to support the need to conduct new research on a particular topic. Likewise, the review of available research provides answers to particular research questions and a knowledge base to learn from previous experiences and identify new research opportunities. Nevertheless, although the need to synthesise research evidence has been recognised for well over two centuries, it was not until the end of the last century that researchers began to develop explicit methods for this form of research. In particular, a literature review allows for achieving this objective. According to Grant and Booth [1], it involves some process for identifying materials for potential inclusion, for selecting included materials, for synthesizing them in textual, tabular or graphical form and for making some analysis of their contributions or value. There are different review types and associated methodologies. Specifically, before 1990, narrative reviews were typically used, but they have some limitations such as the subjectivity, coupled with the lack of transparency, and the early expiration because the synthetization process becomes complicated and eventually untenable as the number of studies increases [2]. The systematic review or systematic literature review method seeks to mitigate the limitations of narrative reviews. Systematic reviews have their origin in the field of Medicine and Health. Nevertheless, the logic of systematic methods for reviewing the literature can be applied to other areas of research such as Humanities, Social Sciences or Software Engineering; therefore there can be as much variation in systematic reviews as is found in primary research [3], [4]. A systematic review is a protocol-driven comprehensive review and synthesis of data focusing on a topic or related key questions. It is typically performed by experienced methodologists with the input of domain experts [5]. The systematic review methods are a way of bringing together what is known from the research literature using explicit and accountable methods [4]. According to Kitchenham [6][8], a systematic review is a means of evaluating and interpreting all available research relevant to a particular research question, topic area, or phenomenon of interest by using a trustworthy, rigorous, and auditable methodology. The analysis of related works and previous studies is not only associated with scientific literature. Another KPI in research centres is the number of projects funded in competitive calls. Project proposals, like other formal studies, have to justify the need to conduct them. Furthermore, most of the calls for funding projects require to justify the innovation of the proposal against other developed projects. Although it might be expected that the results of all funded projects are available in scientific publications, this is not always the norm. Determining the progress made through a research project requires the Guidelines for performing Systematic Research Projects Reviews
[1]
Pearl Brereton,et al.
Systematic literature reviews in software engineering - A systematic literature review
,
2009,
Inf. Softw. Technol..
[2]
Kai Petersen,et al.
Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update
,
2015,
Inf. Softw. Technol..
[3]
Barbara Kitchenham,et al.
Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews
,
2004
.
[4]
Ethan M Balk,et al.
Issues and Challenges in Conducting Systematic Reviews to Support Development of Nutrient Reference Values: Workshop Summary
,
2009
.
[5]
Kai Petersen,et al.
Systematic Mapping Studies in Software Engineering
,
2008,
EASE.
[6]
Francisco J. García-Peñalvo,et al.
Trends in European research projects focused on technological ecosystems in the health sector
,
2018,
TEEM.
[7]
D. Gough,et al.
Commonality and diversity in reviews
,
2012
.
[8]
Maria J Grant,et al.
A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies.
,
2009,
Health information and libraries journal.
[9]
G. Lindahl,et al.
A Study of Relationships Between Content in Documents From Health Service Operational Plans and Documents From the Planning of New Healthcare Environments
,
2018,
HERD.
[10]
Francisco J. García-Peñalvo,et al.
European Proposals to Work in the Gender Gap in STEM: A Systematic Analysis
,
2020,
IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje.
[11]
Francisco J. García-Peñalvo,et al.
Mapping the systematic literature studies about software ecosystems
,
2018,
TEEM.
[12]
S. Naeem,et al.
An assessment of adherence to basic ecological principles by payments for ecosystem service projects
,
2016,
Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.
[13]
Francisco J. García-Peñalvo,et al.
Trends in studies developed in Europe focused on the gender gap in STEM
,
2019,
Interacción.
[14]
D. Moher,et al.
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.
,
2010,
International journal of surgery.
[15]
M. S. Patel,et al.
An introduction to meta-analysis.
,
1989,
Health Policy.
[16]
T. Trikalinos,et al.
Systematic review methods
,
2013
.
[17]
Erdem Taskin.
Analysis of Projects related to the Integration of Migrants
,
2019,
Horizon Insights.
[18]
Francisco J. García-Peñalvo,et al.
Technological Ecosystems in the Health Sector: a Mapping Study of European Research Projects
,
2019,
Journal of Medical Systems.
[19]
Francine Berman,et al.
Business models for sustainable research data repositories
,
2017
.
[20]
D. Gough,et al.
Clarifying differences between review designs and methods
,
2012,
Systematic Reviews.
[21]
Kiriakos Amiridis,et al.
Benefits from Constructability Reviews
,
2017
.
[22]
EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY Public health, country knowledge, crisis management Health Security and Vaccination EU health preparedness: Recommendations for a common EU testing approach for COVID-19
,
2020
.
[23]
M. Petticrew,et al.
Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide
,
2005
.
[24]
Chen Wang,et al.
Tools for Applying Constructability Concepts to Project Development (Design)
,
2012
.