Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1709.05168 v1 pith:BFA6PZPN submitted 2017-09-15 cs.IR cs.HC

Crowdsourcing Paper Screening in Systematic Literature Reviews

classification cs.IR cs.HC
keywords literaturecrowdsourcingprocessresultsreviewreviewsmethodsscreening
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Literature reviews allow scientists to stand on the shoulders of giants, showing promising directions, summarizing progress, and pointing out existing challenges in research. At the same time conducting a systematic literature review is a laborious and consequently expensive process. In the last decade, there have a few studies on crowdsourcing in literature reviews. This paper explores the feasibility of crowdsourcing for facilitating the literature review process in terms of results, time and effort, as well as to identify which crowdsourcing strategies provide the best results based on the budget available. In particular we focus on the screening phase of the literature review process and we contribute and assess methods for identifying the size of tests, labels required per paper, and classification functions as well as methods to split the crowdsourcing process in phases to improve results. Finally, we present our findings based on experiments run on Crowdflower.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.