@LaugeRasmus @KelseyHannah12 Many thanks for your pioneering work! https://t.co/T37xYrvOI5
@simonjbriscoe @gjmelendez @becsta94 Will look forward to reading the next as well! In my MSc thesis, I tried to introduce a practical perspective on why, for fair reasons, non-English studies are neglected in SRs but I was too much of a novice to take th
@shawan_c Impressive work @shawan_c! Other language barriers seem to be that too many native English-speakers do not know (or use their skills in?) other languages, nor do they have (or spend?) money on appropriate language skills, when doing systematic re
@Martin_A_Nunez @KDNyhan @tatsuya_amano @nealhaddaway @NatureEcoEvo @ElizaGrames Well, thank you for citing my MSc thesis (https://t.co/4WvaLykLLI) - made me aware of your work with translatE :) If you need input, ideas and additional language skills for
@com_ecology @AGonzalezVoyer @DenisREALE @itchyshin Thanks for the discussion! We discussed these two types of #languagebarriers in our paper including potential solutions: https://t.co/C06EldLijt The diversity of the team is certainly key (eg see this pap
Side note: Peer review @BMJ_Open challenged us in excluding non-English studies, a topic I worked on in 2017 (https://t.co/4WvaLykLLI) Inspired new idea w working title: Pursuing challenges in including non-English studies in systematic reviews: A compara
RT @Valeria_RamCas: To keep on talking about #EnglishInAcademia #Scicomm: I am sharing the previous research about this subject.2)Limited i…
RT @Valeria_RamCas: To keep on talking about #EnglishInAcademia #Scicomm: I am sharing the previous research about this subject.2)Limited i…
Para seguir hablando sobre #InglésEnLaAcademia. Artículos previos sobre el tema: 2)En revisiones literarias la limitada inclusión de estudios en idiomas diferentes al inglés están relacionadas con falta de recursos y coautores de diversos orígenes. https:/
To keep on talking about #EnglishInAcademia #Scicomm: I am sharing the previous research about this subject.2)Limited inclusion of non-English studies in reviews related to a lack of resources and diverse teams. https://t.co/pcElBRrxSZ
@trishgreenhalgh Perhaps none "because we lacked time and resources", cf. https://t.co/6dTz3J2iOR
@levay_paul @JClinEpi To believe in a firm "universal" conclusion on whether or not look beyond English papers is rather naïve, IMHO. Rather (as indicated in background sec and by my results of https://t.co/rjN8JT9g8Y) it is a practical challenge within li
@levay_paul @JClinEpi Walpole is a paper discussing the overall issue of non-English studies, while Nussbaumer-Streit et al is (yet another) empirical analysis of bias or not reg non-English studies. Results vary between empirical studies: See my backgroun
RT @tatsuya_amano: Only 17 of the 123 Campbel Collaboration systematic reviews included non-English language studies. More countries involv…
RT @tatsuya_amano: Only 17 of the 123 Campbel Collaboration systematic reviews included non-English language studies. More countries involv…
RT @tatsuya_amano: Only 17 of the 123 Campbel Collaboration systematic reviews included non-English language studies. More countries involv…
RT @tatsuya_amano: Only 17 of the 123 Campbel Collaboration systematic reviews included non-English language studies. More countries involv…
RT @tatsuya_amano: Only 17 of the 123 Campbel Collaboration systematic reviews included non-English language studies. More countries involv…
Only 17 of the 123 Campbel Collaboration systematic reviews included non-English language studies. More countries involved in the team -> more non-E studies included. Clearly indicates internatinal collaboration is the key to overcoming #languagebarrier
RT @LaugeRasmus: @raewynconnell Similar trend in "global" systematic reviews: https://t.co/oWGaFsids9 Language limitations = neglected prac…
It's not just #nlproc which neglects things that aren't English; and so we're all restricted. #benderrule
@raewynconnell Similar trend in "global" systematic reviews: https://t.co/oWGaFsids9 Language limitations = neglected practical challenge in northern scientific communities. Though not documented in bit.ly-ref, the limitation was not discussed as potential
See also "The prevalence of and factors associated with inclusion of non-English language studies in Campbell systematic reviews: a survey and meta-epidemiological study" by Rasmussen and Montgomery https://t.co/As9x2UZR0c #sysrevsj
@vawelch @xiaoqin08 @campbellreviews @GrimshawJeremy @jlittell Very interesting indeed, @drpmontgomery Related to our work on Campbell reviews' reporting standards regarding the inclusion of non-English studies https://t.co/LCSdkIeZxR
@FionaBell19 Of 123 Campbell reviews, 108 did not explicitly exclude LOEs, yet only 17 included <1 LOE. Resources and time blamed by authors, but likely a fundamental issue is language skills in a predominantly English speaking field. See: https://t.co/
For more on the practical side of the Tower of Babel-problem when conducting systematic reviews, see e.g. my analyses of @campbellreviews from 2018: https://t.co/LCSdkIeZxR
@JosKleijnen @JClinEpi @KSREvidence A way forward regarding LOEs would indeed be to adress the issue as a practical matter rather than adressing it as a narrow matter of validity. Analyses of @campbellreviews indicate the potential benefits of language ski
@levay_paul @facetpublishing @CILIPinfo Interesting! Does your chap 11 on Collaborative working to improve searching shed light on potential benefits of international review teams? Cf. https://t.co/LCSdkIeZxR
RT @KSRInfoTeam: The prevalence of and factors associated with inclusion of non-English language studies in Campbell systematic reviews: a…
The prevalence of and factors associated with inclusion of non-English language studies in Campbell systematic reviews: a survey and meta-epidemiological study https://t.co/Azck4R5dA9
On why English-only reviews are so prevalent -> The prevalence of and factors associated with inclusion of non-English language studies in Campbell systematic reviews: a survey and meta-epidemiological study https://t.co/vMRLKExgpy