1. Reviewing the literature
András István Kun

2. An 8 step model of research processes
0. Identify broad area of research
discipline, school
Formulating the research problem (specification)
Conceptualising
valid, workable, managable
Constructing an instrument for data collection
Selecting a sample (sampling)
Writing a research proposal
‘Final’ research questions
Collecting data
Processing data
Writing a report

3. Cyclic (‘never-ending’) process of research
Inductive
Deductive
Data analysis
Empirical data
Concepts theory
Research question
Where is the place of literature reviewing?

4. Functions of reviewing literature
Knowledge basis
Theoretical background
Help to find a research problem:
What is known and what is unknown
How can you contribute to the existing knowledge body of your profession
Finding the appropriate hyptheses (abduction)
Help to find out what methodology to use
Formal hypotheses, research techniqe, sampling…
Enables you to contextualize your findings

5. Paradox of literature review
You read to know, but
You have to know what to read (and you have to have some knowledge to understand)
Solution: iterative process of research reviewing

6. The progress of reviewing the literature (Saunders et al. 2016)

7. Improving methodology
What are the accepted methodologies
Methodological problems and solutions
An empirical/methodological review should be part of a literature review chapter of theses or dissertations

8. Knowledge basis
To some extent it is needed to show the context of your research and your findings
Obligatory chapter of Master and PhD theses

9. 5 steps of reviewing literature
Search for existing literature in your of study;
Review the literature selected;
Develop a theoretical framework;
Develop a conceptual framework;
Writing up the literature reviewed.

10. Types of critical review
Integrative review: critiques and synthesises to generate new framework and perspectives
Historcal
Theoretical
Methodological
Other systematic

11. Adopting a critical perspective
Previewing: what is the precise purpose of the text?
Annotating: ’dialogue’
Summarising
Comparing and contrasting

12. A good review… From general to specific (research questions).
Summarizing the main topics, ideas. Include the key theories within your topic area. Demonstrate that your knowledge is up-to-date.
Summarise, compare and contrast
Narrow down to the research work that is more relevant to your own research
Provide a detailed account of the main findings of the literature and show how they are related.
Where and how can we contribute?
Guide the reader to the sections where our contributions are explained.

13. Main sources Books Journals Grey literature Statistical data
Online information

14. Categories of sources (Saunders et al.)

15. Books
Availability
Libraries
Bookshops
Bibliographies (!)
Internet: computer catalogs (keywords, subject)
Advantages: greater likelihood of importance, relevance, quality
Disadvantages: not up to date, price, avaliability, quality-control (bibliography!)
They serve best as starters

16. Journals
Advantages: up-to-date (depends on the journal), area-specific journals
Disadvantages: need more knowledge to understand
They serve best for focused study
Availability:
Libraries
Electronic databases (!)
Internet

17. Gray literature
Grey literature (or gray literature) is a term used variably by the intelligence community, librarians, and medical and research professionals to refer to a body of materials that cannot be found easily through conventional channels such as publishers, "but which is frequently original and usually recent„
Working papers
Theses
Company documents
Magazines
etc.

18. Quality in research Whowhat can be qualified? Researcher Article
Journal
Institution
Publisher …

19. Quality in research (Scientometrics)
The most accepted field of qualification is based on journals.
Academic journals
Referred journals
Peer reviewing
Journal qualification systems
Based on citation (aim: measuring impact)
Rankings
Impact factors
Hirsch index (h-index), half-life, immediacy
„Page rank”, altmetric score…

20. An example: ABDC journal quality list
In 2007, ABDC established an ABDC Journal Quality List to overcome the regional and discipline bias of international lists. 
Reviewed in 2013 and The next major review will be in the second half of 2017.
In 2016: interim review: 
1) new journals started since 1 January 2011;
2) removal of predatory open access journals;
3) change of Field of Research (FoR) grouping; and
4) incorrect factual details - to produce a revised 2016 list. 

21. ABDC journal quality list
The ABDC Journal Quality List 2013 comprises 2,767 different journal titles, divided into four categories of quality, A*: 6.9%; A: 20.8%; B: 28.4%; and C: 43.9% journals. 
In each Field of Research (FoR) group, journals deemed NOT to reach the quality threshold level are not listed. 

22. The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) (WoS, Clarivate Analytics)
From 1975
The journal must be indexed in the Journal Citation Reports
Calculation:
IF for year X = A / B.
A = citations on the citable articles of the journal in years (X-1) and (X-2).
B = total number of the citable articles n a journal in years (X-1) és (X-2).
IF for year X is published in year (X+1).
The sum of the IFs can be used as a quality measure of authors, too.

23. Highest JIF journals by some areas (in 2015)
Economics: JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC LITERATURE, IF: 6.614
General management: ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW, IF: 7.288
Accounting, finance: JOURNAL OF FINANCE, IF: JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING & ECONOMICS, IF: 3.535
Logistics: TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART B: METHODOLOGICAL, IF: SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT - AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, IF: 2.731
> Impact Factor Social Sciences Edition
Agribusiness Impact Factor: 0.738

26. SCImago Journal Rank (SJR, Scopus, Elsevier)
A competitor of WoS, JIT
It is free:
Q1-Q4 quartiles

28. Hirsch index or h-index
Measuring the most important publications
Author level
h: an author has published h papers each of which has citations in at least h papers
Wikipedia

29. Where to start your search
You can search for:
Title
Author
Keyword
JEL classification
In text: abstract or full

30. Where to start your search
Electronic databases:
lib.unideb.hu (meta search engines)
search.epnet.com (EBSCO database)
University pages
Pages of libraries
Library…

31. Where to start your search
„Social media” for researchers:
academia.edu
researchaget.net
ssrn.com
scholar.google.hu
tudoster.idea.unideb.hu/en

37. „Publish or Perish”
You are a good researcher if you can prove it through qualified publications.
The role of citations.
Its adverse effects.
The journey of a manuscript to become an article.

38. Co-authors Reasons: Order of the co-authors:
Working together on the given paper,
Partners in the same research team,
Provide a significant help (data, money, their name and contacts…)
Other reasons
Order of the co-authors:
Role
Name
The number and the position of the co-authors can be considered when evaluating a researcher

39. The journey of a paper to be published
Writing
Selecting the journal: submission
Editorial review
Peer review (decision: refuse, major correction, minor correction, without correction)
Open review
Single blind review
Double blind review
Editorial decision on acceptance
Editing, grammatical corrections
on-line first publication
Real publication (volume, issue)

40. Being refused by the editor example
I regret to inform you that have now desk reviewed your paper but unfortunately feel it is unsuitable for publication in Culture and Organization. I know that this will be disappointing news so let me summarize my reasons. The first issue here is that your research mobilizes a set of ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions which are at odds with the ethos of our journal. We specialize in critical, qualitative research which investigates the intersections between culture and organization. We do not publish work which takes a positivistic approach, is deductive and/ or uses quantitative instruments and statistical analyses. Second, your paper focuses on students, and as such is better placed in an higher education studies journal. Third, there are no references in the manuscript to previous C&O papers. While we have no hard and fast rule about appropriate numbers of citations in this regard, the absence of any at all is usually a signal that the paper isn't suitable for the journal. Sadly that is the case here. I hope you find these comments helpful. You are of course now free to submit the paper elsewhere should you choose to do so. Thank you for considering Culture and Organization. I hope the outcome of this specific submission will not discourage you from the submission of future manuscripts.

41. Two current trends
Open Access movement
Predatory journals

42. Referencing Why? The role of references in research. When?
How? Systems of referencing.
Author-date sytems: Harvard, APA
Numeric systems: in the text or in the list
Plagiarism

43. Homework
Search out fourrelevant sources (full citation needed in Harvard, APA, Chicago, UD FEBA):
Book (borrow it from the library)
Journal article (record its JEL-code, JIF, scopus rank, electronic copy)
Grey source: working paper + dissertation/theses (electronic copies)
Register at the academia.edu (find me there)

44. Thanks for your attention