This question is for folks who have done some kind of computing research.
Did you ever get formal training in how to do a literature review? What about informal training?
Some options, in case that lowers the barrier to entering the conversation:
This question is for folks who have done some kind of computing research.
Did you ever get formal training in how to do a literature review? What about informal training?
Some options, in case that lowers the barrier to entering the conversation:
@cxli For context: the #acmdl frictions make systematic reviews painful. It feels borderline unusable as a research tool and is incomplete.
#googlescholar is more complete, but the accuracy of the metadata drops off. I've found that historic searches (e.g., <1950) are mostly incorrectly dated.
I was curious whether this is corroborated by research and came across: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7079055/
...
@cxli Interestingly, this study (conducted in 2019) reports that the #ACMDL allows bulk download. I don't know if this feature is just hard to find or if it's been removed since then.
(Maybe @JonathanAldrich would know?)
@JonathanAldrich @cxli What I'm wondering is whether people like me are even the target audience for ACM DL subscriptions. If yes, then surely others would be interested in these features! If no, I'd like to know what our alternatives are.
I'd love to hear any insights you have on this, @JonathanAldrich! I really appreciate having some insight into the mechanics of these orgs.