-
Here is an example of work done to clarify the situation that the authors say they are attempting to clarify. Linked at the bottom of this post. If you take the authors’ word in the conclusion then it is useless.
Actually, each time I look back through the work I find that it is almost identical in poor quality to the work that they say is of poor quality. It’s very meta. A work of poor quality about work of poor quality. The more you look the more you see that is a study with an agenda.
Here is a selection of statements that should have caused the paper to be rejected. Actually, anyone can read the Limitations section and probably come to the same conclusion I did – this paper has no value. But it was published in a major journal.
“Limitations
This study is an informal review of 20 high-impact studies. It is not a comprehensive systematic review of the entire literature, and due to the nature of this study, it does not include more contemporary research.”“The applied search engine, Google Scholar, is an excellent source of freely available bibliometric data, however, it does provide some limitations.”
“Google Scholar only allows for access to the 1,000 most relevant search results for any particular search query, and thus, the literature search in this review cannot be considered entirely comprehensive [58]”
“In this review, the inclusion of studies was partially based on the overall citation count of each study. This was a pragmatic approach, and the number of citations is only a surrogate measure of study impact or quality, and the reliability and accuracy of this measure is debatable.”
“For the reasons above, we do not claim this study to be exhaustive. Nevertheless, the results and conclusions remain valid for the included studies.”