We have to decide what the aim of the systematic literature review
should be. In my opinion, there are many possibilities. Some ideas:
This are in my opinion three different aims/questions and the answering
needs different samples. Based on your answers, I had the feeling that
there were different interests regarding the Systematic Literature
Review. My suggestion would be:
First that you add more aims/questions if you have any.
Secondly, that you add in the table below which aim you are interested
in.
Danny Haelewaters: These three aims certainly feel like they could be three independent papers. [Lamia +1]
Hendrik Tevaearai Stahel:
Max: Agree with Danny. We might want prioritize. The first aim seems pretty straight forward. For the third I'm wondering if there exists a sufficient number of such reviews to allow for a meta-analysis?
Tarandeep: I certainly agree that the first floor aims would be the simplest to do. I also agree that the other two aims might want to be sectioned off for different future papers. Thirdly, as Max says, the idea of teaching open science seems to be a fairly new one, I therefore find it (personally) unlikely that there will be a significant number of reviews on the topic.
Helen: I will be starting a project shortly specifically looking at teaching open science using online methods - my first step was to be a review of any existing practice hence my interest in this paper. I am mainly interested in the first aim, but later in my project the second aim will be relevant.
Tobias: Seconding Max w. regards to the sufficient number of OS papers; also, I think what needs further consideration - and maybe to tackle the "convenience selection" issue mentioned under "Methods" - is that we need to consider that, although people may not have explicitly labeled their research "Open Science", they might still be doing / teaching the practices that define the field, e.g. much of Open Education, Digital Humanities, Data Management/RDM/FAIR use, OER production, licensing, etc. ... and corresponding terminological overlaps such as discussed by the resource collection of Weller et al. here - https://go-gn.net/research/openness-and-education-a-beginners-guide/ Loek: I think curating OS teaching materials/syllabuses would be very useful, to offer an easy way to implement OS in education.
Olmo: I think it's also worthwhile to check what BITTS already has with regard to teaching open science. I tink they actively keep track of developments. https://www.bitss.org