Page 309 - CyberSecurityEssentialsEnglish

+ For the advanced reader: getting the search reviewed
In complex systematic reviews it is preferable to involve an information specialist or a
research librarian to review the strategy. Established instruments exist for peer-reviewing
electronic search strategies, and reporting extensions provide items for describing the
search transparently.

✓ Practical tip: ask for a concept table, not a keyword list
Do not ask the tool only for keywords. Ask for a table showing the concept, the
synonyms, the broader and narrower terms, the abbreviations, and the Arabic and
English forms, then test each set in the actual database.

● Remember: Section summary
• Key idea: Scientific searching is a documented, repeatable strategy, not a passing list of
results.
• Practical decision: Build concept sets, test the query, and record every version, source,
and date.

• Mistake to avoid: Relying on one engine, language, or phrasing and claiming
comprehensiveness.

7.3.1 Choosing the Type of Review Before Choosing the Tool

Not every literature review is a systematic review. Before asking AI to gather sources or
summarize papers, we must decide the type of work: do we want a narrative account that
interprets a broad field, a scoping map, a systematic review with a defined question, a rapid

review suited to a decision deadline, an evidence map, or a meta-analysis? The choice of
type determines the level of rigor, the method of searching, and what must be documented.

The best known reporting statement for reviews is PRISMA, short for Preferred Reporting
Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Using its flow diagram or its checklist does

not make work systematic automatically; it improves reporting and transparency, while rigor
comes from a clear protocol, an appropriate search strategy, documented screening, quality

appraisal, and disciplined synthesis [2][4][5]. The wider methodological literature and
established handbooks help in calibrating the question, the search, the screening, the
appraisal, and the synthesis [23][24][25]. Scoping reviews benefit from their own reporting
extension [6], and protocol reporting guidance helps in preparing a protocol before

execution [18][31].

308