Since I have moved to UCSB in March, I have been working on a systematic review on spatial familiarity. When you hear about a “systematic review,” it might sound like just another research buzzword. But in reality, it’s a painstaking and highly detailed process that helps scientists make sense of a huge body of existing research on a specific topic. Honestly, it feels a little like solving a jigsaw puzzle with thousands of tiny, scattered pieces, some of which might not even fit your puzzle. Such a task is similar to screening hundreds of research papers for a systematic review like I’m currently doing.
Besides the sheer volume of papers, it is particularly challenging because it comes with the crucial challenge to apply inclusion and exclusion criteria consistently. Some papers are clearly unrelated and can be excluded quickly. Others, however, are borderline cases: Does this study really fit our criteria? Does it answer the question we’re trying to explore? Making these decisions is time-consuming and requires careful judgment to avoid missing crucial studies.
Stay tuned, I’ll be getting there…