# data[].attributes.body
Pesquise com IA sem medo de errar 🧠✨ Aprenda um passo a passo simples para encontrar artigos realmente confiáveis para o seu TCC ou primeira revisão.

Use Perplexity Pro ou ChatGPT, Elicit/Consensus e Scite para fugir de referências inventadas e montar só uma base de estudos que vale a pena citar 📚✅

Acesse aqui o guia rápido, pensado para quem está iniciando um TCC de graduação ou começando a pós e quer ganhar velocidade sem perder o rigor acadêmico 🚀🎓

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
camuzi.net © 2026 by Ranieri Camuzi is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

# data[].attributes.headline
Integrando IA com gerenciadores de referências

# data[].attributes.subject
Integrando IA com gerenciadores de referências

# data[].attributes.body
Veja como integrar a IA ao gerenciador de referências, do início ao fim do seu trabalho de pesquisa, sem comprometer o rigor científico, otimizando a organização das suas referências e facilitando o processo de citação. Clique aqui para ver essa dica!🤖📓

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Integrar IA e gerenciadores | camuzi.net

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
camuzi.net © 2026 by Ranieri Camuzi is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

# data[].attributes.body
Acesse aqui o Guia introdutório comparativo e os procedimentos operacionais padrão para Revisão de Escopo e Revisão Integrativa que elaboramos especialmente para nosso grupo de pesquisa Saudável.UFF.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
camuzi.net © 2026 by Ranieri Camuzi is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

# data[].attributes.body
Referências sugeridas:

1. SOUZA, M. T.; SILVA, M. D.; CARVALHO, R. Revisão integrativa: o que é e como fazer. Einstein, v. 8, n. 1, p. 102–106, 2010.

https://www.scielo.br/j/eins/a/ZQTBkVJZqcWrTT34cXLjtBx/?format=pdf&lang=pt

2. ERCOLE, F. F.; MELO, L. S.; ALCOFORADO, C. L. G. C. Revisão integrativa versus revisão sistemática. REME - Revista Mineira de Enfermagem, v. 18, n. 1, p. 9–11, 2014.

https://periodicos.ufmg.br/index.php/reme/article/view/50174

# data[].attributes.body
Artigo:

Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C. M., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Parker, D., & Soares, C. B. (2015). Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(3), 141–146. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

Reviews of primary research are becoming more common as evidence-based practice gains recognition as the benchmark for care, and the number of, and access to, primary research sources has grown. As more authors are conducting reviews to integrate research findings, various review types have evolved with their respective methodologies developing in precision and clarity. In 2009, Grant and Booth identified 14 different types of literature reviews. One of these review types was the 'scoping review'. Although the first framework for scoping reviews was published in 2005, scoping reviews are still a relatively new methodology that, as yet, do not possess a universal definition or definitive method. Scoping reviews have great utility for synthesizing research evidence and are often used to map existing literature in a given field in terms of its nature, features, and volume. As such, scoping reviews have also been called 'mapping' reviews. In general, scoping reviews are commonly used for 'reconnaissance' - to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field. Scoping reviews are therefore of particular use when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a large, complex, or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review. While scoping reviews may be conducted to determine the value and probable scope of a full systematic review, they may also be undertaken as exercises in and of themselves to summarize and disseminate research findings, to identify research gaps, and to make recommendations for future research.

This article will first briefly introduce the reader to scoping reviews, how they are different from systematic reviews, and why they might be conducted. We will then explain in greater detail our guidance for the development of systematic scoping reviews using a methodology developed by members of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and members of five Joanna Briggs Collaborating Centres.

What are scoping reviews and why conduct one?

The JBI views the systematic review and the synthesis of evidence to be at the core of evidence-based practice. Traditionally, systematic reviews have brought together quantitative literature on a particular condition or intervention to answer questions of effectiveness. In addition to effectiveness, the JBI is also concerned with the appropriateness, meaningfulness, and feasibility of healthcare practices and delivery. Such questions are more commonly answered through the consideration of other forms of research evidence, for example, qualitative and economic evidence. The JBI regards the results of well designed research studies of any methodology as potential sources of credible evidence. To correspond with the JBI's broader and more inclusive view of evidence, the Institute has developed a number of theories, methodologies, and processes for the synthesis of diverse forms of evidence to aid decision-making in healthcare. All JBI systematic reviews begin with the development of a protocol, followed by a rigorous, replicable, and extensive search of the international literature. Whereas a typical systematic review aims to answer a specific question or series of questions according to a rigid set of a priori delimiting factors detailed in the protocol, a scoping review will have a broader approach, generally with the aim of mapping literature and addressing a broader research question.

Unlike systematic reviews, the aim of the scoping reviews is a way of mapping the key concepts that underpin a research area. Scoping reviews can be particularly useful for bringing together literature in disciplines with emerging evidence, as they are suited to addressing questions beyond those related to the effectiveness or experience of an intervention. Scoping reviews can be conducted to map a body of literature with relevance to time, location (e.g. country or context), source (e.g. peer-reviewed or grey literature), and origin (e.g. healthcare discipline or academic field). The value of scoping reviews to evidence-based practice is the examination of a broader area to identify gaps in the research knowledge base, clarify key concepts, and report on the types of evidence that address and inform practice in the field. Scoping reviews also may be carried out to determine not only the extent of the research available regarding a topic but also the way the research has been conducted. For example, a recent scoping review of scoping reviews aimed to provide an overview of how scoping reviews have been conducted.

To support the greater breadth of scoping reviews, a variety of study designs are usually included. This is not prescriptive, however, and reviewers may decide that certain study designs are not appropriate for consideration for their particular scoping review. For example, in a scoping review on homecare safety and medication management for older adults, the review authors considered both qualitative and quantitative study designs. It is, however, important to highlight the distinction between scoping reviews and 'comprehensive systematic reviews', which draw upon evidence from multiple study designs to answer a series of related and specific questions. In a comprehensive systematic review, the goal is to synthesize the evidence from multiple study designs, and often the knowledge (and richness) gained from the qualitative evidence is used to enhance the knowledge gained from the quantitative evidence. In these reviews, the activity of synthesis is actively undertaken. Whereas in a scoping review, the goal is to determine what range of evidence (quantitative and/or qualitative) is available on a topic and to represent this evidence visually as a mapping or charting of the located data. The act of synthesis is not undertaken, but rather the range of located evidence is graphically represented.

Another distinction between scoping reviews and systematic reviews is that unlike a systematic review, scoping reviews are designed to provide an overview of the existing evidence base regardless of quality. Hence, a formal assessment of methodological quality of the included studies is generally not performed.

Developing a systematic scoping review

A scoping review requires at least two reviewers and, as with all systematic reviews, an a priori scoping review protocol must be developed prior to undertaking the review itself. Following the same process, as the conduct of a systematic review, the scoping review protocol pre-defines the objectives and methods of the scoping review and details the proposed plans. Whereas deviations from a review protocol for a traditional systematic review are rare, due to the more iterative nature of a scoping review, some changes may be necessary. Any discrepancies should still be clearly detailed and justified in the 'Methods' section of the scoping review report, if and when they occur.

Title

The title must be concise enough to reflect the 'Population', 'Concept', and 'Context' of the review, which are the elements of a scoping review used to establish a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria which will be explained in more depth shortly. The scoping review by Godfrey et al., published in 2013, serves as an exemplar for the following discussion on the requirements of a scoping review. The title of this review is: 'Homecare safety and medication management with older adults: a scoping review of the quantitative and qualitative evidence'.

Background

The background of a scoping review should be comprehensive and should cover the main elements of the topic, important definitions, and the existing knowledge in the field.

Review question/objective

The review objective(s) and specific review question(s) must be clearly stated. The objective may be broad and will guide the scope of the enquiry. The review question(s) should be consistent with the title and direct the development of the specific inclusion criteria. In our exemplar scoping review, the objectives of the review were focused on the pertinent issues specifically related to medication management for individuals living at home and receiving homecare services, and were guided by the following research questions:

1. What are the issues encountered by individuals, families, caregivers, and healthcare providers related to the medication management of individuals living in the community and receiving homecare services?

2. What are the documented errors or adverse events that occur in this population that relate to the management of their medications?

3. What strategies have been implemented and evaluated in the home setting that address the issues related to medication management encountered by this population?

Inclusion criteria

As with systematic reviews, inclusion criteria provide a guide to understanding what is proposed by the reviewers and, more importantly, a guide for the reviewers themselves to base decisions on the sources to be included in the scoping review. The rationale or justification for each of the inclusion criteria should be explained clearly and thoroughly in the background.

Types of participants

The relevant characteristics of participants should be detailed, including age and other qualifying criteria, which match the review question and identify them as appropriate for the objectives of the scoping review. In our exemplar scoping review, studies were included that focused on older individuals (mean age 65 years or older) who were receiving homecare services. Studies that focused on providers (licensed or unlicensed) and caregivers [family/friends (paid or unpaid)] who were involved in the medication management process were also included.

Concept

The principal focus or concept examined by the scoping review should be clearly detailed to guide the review's scope and breadth. Explanation of the concept may include details that pertain to the 'interventions' and/or 'phenomena of interest' that would be specified in greater detail in a systematic review. The concept examined in a scoping review may not be related to interventions or phenomena of interest, and may be instead related to research designs, frameworks, theories, or classifications. The standard 'outcomes' of a systematic review may be a component of the concept of a scoping review and should be linked closely to the objective and the purpose of the scoping review. In our exemplar scoping review, the key concept was the process of medication management, and studies were considered that evaluated the process of medication management involving either providers (licensed and unlicensed) or caregivers (family/friends paid or unpaid).

Context

The context of a scoping review will vary depending on the objective(s)/question(s). The context should be clearly defined and may include consideration of geographical or locational factors, cultural factors, and/or specific racial or sex-based interests. The context may also encompass details about the specific setting (such as acute care, primary health care, or community) or discipline (e.g. education, pharmacy, or nursing) under examination. In our exemplar scoping review, the context was the provision of care in the individual's home or residence.

Searching

The approach to searching for studies for a scoping review follows the same three-step method recommended as in standard JBI systematic reviews. The search strategy should be comprehensive in order to identify both published and unpublished (grey literature) evidence. Each step must be clearly stated in this section of the protocol. The first step is an initial limited search of a selection of relevant databases, followed by an analysis of text words contained in the title and abstract, and of the index terms used to describe the article. A second search using all identified keywords and index terms is then undertaken across all included databases. Thirdly, the reference list of all identified reports and articles should be searched for additional studies. Reviewers should include the languages that will be considered for inclusion in the review, as well as the publication date limitations with an appropriate and clear justification for choices.

Extracting and charting the results

The number of studies identified and selected for inclusion in the scoping review must be reported. There should be a narrative description of the search decision process accompanied by the search decision flowchart (see Fig. 1). The flow chart should clearly detail the review decision process, indicate the results from the search, removal of duplicate citations, study selection, full retrieval, and additions from reference list searching and final summary presentation.

FIGURE 1:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram for the scoping review process.

The extraction of data for a scoping review is referred to as 'charting the results' and should be a logical and descriptive summary of the results that align to the objective/s and question/s of the review. A draft charting table or form should be developed as part of the protocol to record characteristics of the included studies and the key information relevant to the review question. Refinement of the charting forms may be required during the conduct of the full review, and reviewers may need to trial the extraction form on two or three studies to ensure all relevant results are extracted (see Box 1 for the types of information that may be extracted).

In a scoping review, the results may be presented as a 'map' of the data in a logical, diagrammatic, or tabular form, and/or in a descriptive format that aligns to the objective/s and scope of the review. The tables and charts may show results as: distribution of studies by year or period of publication (depends on each case), country of origin, area of intervention (clinical, policy, educational, etc.), and research methods. It is up to the reviewers to decide which would most rationally and clearly illustrate the nature of the results in terms of the objective/s and question/s of the review. A summary of the results should logically describe the aims or purposes of the included articles, the concepts or approaches adopted in each, and the results that relate to the review question/s. For each category, a clear explanation should be provided.

The extracted results may be classified under main conceptual categories depending upon the objective or focus of the review, such as: 'intervention type'; 'study population'; 'duration of intervention'; 'aims'; 'methodology adopted'; 'key findings'; and 'gaps in the research'.

At the time of protocol development, the reviewers should detail a proposed plan for presenting the results. This may then be further refined toward the end of the review when the reviewers have the greatest awareness of the contents of their included studies. In our exemplar scoping review, the results were charted diagrammatically (see Fig. 2 below).

FIGURE 2:

Map of outcomes measured by number of studies in the exemplar scoping review.

Discussion

This section should include an in-depth discussion of the results of the review, as well as any limitations of the sources included in the scoping review. Results presented in the charting stage should be discussed in the context of the current literature, practice, and policy.

Conclusions and implications for research and practice

The conclusions drawn should match the review objective/question and should begin with an overall conclusion based upon the results of the scoping review. Following on from the conclusion, clear, specific recommendations for future research based on gaps in knowledge identified from the results of the review can be presented. Authors may be able to make comments about the future conduct of systematic reviews that may be appropriate or primary research that is needed in the area of interest. Depending upon the aim and focus of the scoping review, recommendations for practice may not be able to be developed. This is further compounded by the absence of a methodological quality appraisal.

Conclusion

This article began by discussing scoping reviews as an increasingly common approach for seeking and mapping the evidence in broad topic areas. Due to the apparent inconsistency in the conduct of scoping reviews overall, this article then presented a brief overview of the guidance developed by the JBI to standardize the conduct and reporting of the scoping reviews. This standardization will also improve the utility and robustness of the results of scoping reviews. Following on from Pham et al., this study is intended to contribute to the ongoing clarification and enhancement of the scoping review methodology as a synthesis tool for evidence-based healthcare practice and policy. The ongoing interest in evidence-based practice is expected to continue to grow along with the volume of published and grey literature evidence. While methodologies for the synthesis of evidence in systematic reviews are now relatively sophisticated, much refinement is still possible for the conduct of relatively new techniques such as scoping reviews.

References

2. Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, McInerney P, et al.. Methodology for JBI scoping reviews. The Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual 2015.Adelaide, South Australia: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2015.

9. Crilly T, Jashapara A, Ferlie E. Research utilisation and knowledge mobilisation: a scoping review of the literature. London:Department of Management, King's College London; 2010.

15. Aromataris E, Riitano D. Constructing a search strategy and searching for evidence. A guide to the literature search for a systematic review. Am J Nursing 2014; 114:49-56.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews : JBI Evidence Implementation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
or 'reconnaissance' - to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field. Scoping reviews are therefore particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence.

# data[].attributes.headline
Questionários e Roteiros: instrumentos de Pesquisa Qualitativa

# data[].attributes.subject
Questionários e Roteiros: instrumentos de Pesquisa Qualitativa

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Instrumentos de Pesquisa Qualitativa | camuzi.net

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
camuzi.net © 2025 by Ranieri Camuzi is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

# data[].attributes.body
A ciência da implementação é uma abordagem multidisciplinar que visa facilitar a adoção e o uso de práticas e intervenções baseadas em evidências em contextos reais, como serviços de saúde, políticas públicas e outros sistemas. Trata-se do estudo científico de métodos e estratégias para que as evidências da pesquisa possam ser transformadas em ação e tenham impacto na prática e nos resultados.

Principais aspectos da ciência da implementação:

Foco na adoção e uso de evidências:

A ciência da implementação se preocupa em garantir que as evidências científicas sejam efetivamente incorporadas e utilizadas na prática, em vez de apenas serem produzidas em pesquisas.

Abordagem multidisciplinar:

Envolve diferentes áreas do conhecimento, como epidemiologia, psicologia, sociologia, gestão em saúde, entre outras, para entender os fatores que influenciam a implementação.

Contexto e fatores de implementação:

Reconhece que a implementação não é um processo linear e que o contexto, as características dos indivíduos e das organizações, e outros fatores podem afetar a adoção de práticas e intervenções.

Estratégias e ferramentas:

Utiliza diferentes estratégias e ferramentas para facilitar a implementação, como treinamento de profissionais, adaptação de intervenções ao contexto, comunicação eficaz, engajamento de partes interessadas, entre outras.

Avaliação da implementação:

Avalia o processo de implementação e os seus resultados, buscando identificar o que funciona e o que não funciona para melhorar a prática e o impacto.

Benefícios da ciência da implementação:

Melhoria da qualidade e eficácia dos serviços de saúde:

Ao facilitar a adoção de práticas baseadas em evidências, a ciência da implementação contribui para a melhoria da qualidade e eficácia dos serviços de saúde, resultando em melhores resultados para os pacientes.

Melhora dos resultados em saúde:

Ao implementar intervenções eficazes e relevantes, a ciência da implementação pode contribuir para a melhoria dos resultados em saúde, como a redução da mortalidade, a prevenção de doenças e a promoção da saúde.

Aumento da sustentabilidade das intervenções:

Ao identificar e implementar estratégias que promovem a sustentabilidade das intervenções, a ciência da implementação contribui para que as práticas e políticas baseadas em evidências continuem a ser utilizadas a longo prazo.

Fortalecimento da pesquisa em saúde:

Ao promover a implementação de evidências, a ciência da implementação contribui para o fortalecimento da pesquisa em saúde, mostrando o impacto das pesquisas na prática e incentivando a produção de novas evidências.

(Texto criado por IA - Gemini, em 31/06/2025)

# data[].attributes.headline
Método PIP: escrevendo artigos de revisão

# data[].attributes.subject
Método PIP: escrevendo artigos de revisão

# data[].attributes.headline
Orientador para pesquisa de artigos na BVS e para fichamento de artigos

# data[].attributes.subject
Orientador para pesquisa de artigos na BVS e para fichamento de artigos

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ebook_Orientador para pesquisa de artigos na BVS e_250522_105751

# data[].attributes.headline
Como elaborar e submeter resumos de trabalhos científicos para congressos

# data[].attributes.subject
Como elaborar e submeter resumos de trabalhos científicos para congressos

# data[].attributes.headline
Discutindo estratégias para a construção de questionários como ferramenta de pesquisa

# data[].attributes.subject
Discutindo estratégias para a construção de questionários como ferramenta de pesquisa

# data[].attributes.headline
Introdução à Ciência de Implementação para Profissionais da Saúde

# data[].attributes.subject
Introdução à Ciência de Implementação para Profissionais da Saúde

# data[].attributes.body
eBook

# data[].attributes.headline
Reflexões sobre elaboração de roteiros de entrevista e questionários

# data[].attributes.subject
Reflexões sobre elaboração de roteiros de entrevista e questionários

# data[].attributes.body
Síntese elaborada com base em

MINAYO, M.C.S. O desafio do conhecimento: pesquisa qualitativa em saúde. 10 ed. Hucitec : São Paulo, 2007. (Capítulos 8 e 10.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reflexões sobre elaboração de roteiros de entrevista e questionários

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Os instrumentos de trabalho de campo na pesquisa qualitativa visam mediar entre os marcos teórico-metodológicos e a realidade empírica. São eles: roteiro de entrevista, roteiro para observação participante e roteiro para discussão de grupos focais.# Elaboração e Uso do Roteiro de EntrevistaO roteiro de entrevista é entendido como uma lista de temas que se desdobram em indicadores qualitativos de uma investigação. Essa lista deve ter, como substrato, um conjunto de conceitos que constituem todas

# data[].attributes.headline
Observação participante e instrumentos para trabalho de campo

# data[].attributes.subject
Observação participante e instrumentos para trabalho de campo

# data[].attributes.body
Síntese elaborada com base em

MINAYO, M.C.S. O desafio do conhecimento: pesquisa qualitativa em saúde. 10 ed. Hucitec : São Paulo, 2007. (Capítulos 8 e 10.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Observação participante e instrumentos para trabalho de campo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Os instrumentos de trabalho de campo na pesquisa qualitativa servem para fazer a mediação entre os marcos teórico-metodológicos e a realidade empírica. Entre esses instrumentos, encontram-se o roteiro de entrevista, o roteiro para discussão de grupos focais e o roteiro para observação participante.A observação participante pode ser considerada uma parte essencial do trabalho de campo qualitativo. É entendida como a presença do observador numa determinada situação social com a finalidade de reali

# data[].attributes.body
Treinando a Observação Participante - texto de Foote-Whyte

# data[].attributes.body
O Mendeley é o meu gerenciador de referências preferido, porque ele me permite fazer muito mais do que organizar as minhas referências.

Algumas das suas utilidades que mais utilizo são:

guardar os arquivos PDF das referências;

fazer anotações nesses arquivos PDF, incluindo destaques e notas do que pode me interessar em cada referência, permitindo encontrá-las e retornar a cada uma quando for preciso;

buscas de artigos;

acesso a artigos de acesso restrito (pagos), que podem ser compartilhados por outros usuários;

gerar citações e referências;

automatizar a citação e a referência bibliográfica na elaboração de artigos ...

Se você quiser saber mais sobre o uso do Mendeley, recomendo os seguintes vídeos:

Tutorial Mendeley (Fabio Portela): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccEzt1W0ubA&authuser=0

Inteligência Artificial, Organizador de conteúdos e gerenciador de citações e referências (Simone Semensatto): https://youtu.be/Fe7wuHb1rGg?si=iUv8p2z-yTPefcFf

# data[].attributes.body
O plano de texto é um documento orientador para traçar um planejamento do que se pretende realizar e quais etapas devem ser realizadas para chegar ao objetivo final.

Este modelo foi elaborado como proposta para orientação de quem está começando a desenvolver o seu trabalho, seja TCC, dissertação, tese, artigo ou qualquer outro tipo de texto acadêmico.

Acesse, faça uma cópia e substitua os trechos explicativos (em cinza) pelas informações do seu projeto.

Espero que seja útil para você!

Aguardo seus comentários e sugestões.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
PLANO DE TEXTO [Utilize este documento como uma orientação para o desenvolvimento do seu trabalho, que será desenvolvido em outro arquivo/documento. Se desejar, salve uma cópia e atualize com os seus dados, apagando/substituindo estes trechos em cinza, que são apenas explicações ou sugestões.] A...

# data[].attributes.headline
Saúde mental na academia: é preciso cuidar

# data[].attributes.subject
Saúde mental na academia: é preciso cuidar

# data[].attributes.body
Esta dica está embasada no estudo realizado por Evans e colaboradores (2018) com foco em pós-graduandos, mas também é útil para estudantes de graduação.

É fundamental estar cientes da importância de cuidar da sua saúde mental durante o período de pós-graduação. Há uma crescente preocupação com o bem-estar mental nesta população, indicando uma crise de saúde mental na educação de pós-graduação.

Os dados revelam que estudantes de pós-graduação são mais de seis vezes mais propensos a experimentar depressão e ansiedade em comparação com a população geral. Especificamente, 41% dos estudantes de pós-graduação apresentaram ansiedade moderada a grave e 39% depressão moderada a grave no estudo de Evans e col. (2018). A prevalência de ansiedade e depressão varia por gênero: estudantes transgênero/não-conformistas de gênero apresentaram 55% e 57% respectivamente, mulheres 43% e 41%, e homens 34% e 35%.

Para proteger sua saúde mental, é crucial considerar os seguintes pontos:

Priorize o equilíbrio entre vida pessoal e profissional: Um bom equilíbrio entre vida pessoal e profissional está significativamente correlacionado com melhores resultados de saúde mental. Os resultados mostram que 56% dos estudantes de pós-graduação com ansiedade moderada a grave e 55% daqueles com depressão não concordaram com a afirmação "Eu tenho um bom equilíbrio entre vida pessoal e profissional".

Comunique-se abertamente com seu orientador: O relacionamento com o pesquisador principal (PP) ou orientador afeta a qualidade da formação na pós-graduação. Os dados indicam que relações de mentoria fortes, de apoio e positivas entre estudantes de pós-graduação e seus PP/orientadores correlacionam-se significativamente com menos ansiedade e depressão.

Busque ajuda especializada quando sentir necessidade: Dado o alto índice de ansiedade e depressão na população de pós-graduandos, há uma necessidade crítica de estudos adicionais que investiguem estratégias de intervenção. Isso inclui o acesso aprimorado a apoio à saúde mental.

Sua saúde e bem-estar são fundamentais para o sucesso na pós-graduação. Não hesitem em procurar o apoio necessário.

O GAPP.UFF oferece ajuda nesse sentido: https://www.instagram.com/gapp.uff/

Referência:

EVANS, Teresa M. et al. Evidence for a mental health crisis in

graduate education. Nature Biotechnology, v. 36, n. 3, p. 282-284, 2018. Disponível em: https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.4089. Acesso em: 16 jan. 2025.

NATURE. Science careers and mental health. Nature, 23 ago.

2019. Disponível em: https://www.nature.com/collections/gnlwffjgtr. Acesso em: 15 jun. 2025.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.

# data[].attributes.headline
A redação de um artigo científico: por onde começar?

# data[].attributes.subject
A redação de um artigo científico: por onde começar?

# data[].attributes.body
O Rayyan pode ser definido como um gerenciador especializado para revisões da literatura. É um software baseado na web desenvolvido para auxiliar pesquisadores na realização de revisões sistemáticas e outras sínteses de conhecimento, facilitando o processo de seleção e organização de artigos. Ele usa inteligência artificial para otimizar a triagem de artigos e simplificar a colaboração entre pesquisadores.

Segue uma sugestão de tutorial em vídeo: https://youtu.be/j4XM82oZIoU?si=1vI2PGvFDhcaPt6o

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TUTORIAL COMPLETO - Nova atualização do Rayyan 2024: como exportar os arquivos e realizar a triagem

# data[].attributes.body
O Zotero é outro gerenciador de referências muito popular.

Temos usado principalmente como apoio em revisões da literatura, por exemplo, para consolidar resultados de buscas, identificar e retirar duplicatas e exportar um arquivo que seja compatível com softwares de bibliometria ou revisão.

Para saber mais sobre ele, recomendo esta videoaula da professora de biblioteconomia Simone Semensatto: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl0PLPlZb4M

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Zotero - Software de gestão de citações e referências bibliográficas

# data[].attributes.body
O Rayyan pode ser definido como um gerenciador especializado para revisões da literatura. É um software baseado na web desenvolvido para auxiliar pesquisadores na realização de revisões sistemáticas e outras sínteses de conhecimento, facilitando o processo de seleção e organização de artigos. Ele usa inteligência artificial para otimizar a triagem de artigos e simplificar a colaboração entre pesquisadores.

Segue uma sugestão de tutorial em vídeo: https://youtu.be/j4XM82oZIoU?si=1vI2PGvFDhcaPt6o

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TUTORIAL COMPLETO - Nova atualização do Rayyan 2024: como exportar os arquivos e realizar a triagem

# data[].attributes.headline
Preparo para a redação de artigo científico

# data[].attributes.subject
Preparo para a redação de artigo científico

# data[].attributes.body
Projeto apresentado em uma série de 6 episódios de podcast, partindo da complexidade que envolve a universidade e a vida acadêmica, para refletir sobre a necessidade de criar e buscar soluções, e "promover clubes de escuta: espaços para estudantes, pesquisadores e professores criarem redes de apoio e discutirem os desafios de seus contextos usando como suporte os recursos" preparados para cada episódio.

O link aqui disponibilizado leva para a página do projeto, onde é possível localizar os episódios e demais materiais.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
porque a vida na universidade
vai muito além do currículo

# data[].attributes.body
Para efeito prático, fica entendido que o papel formal do orientador de pesquisa acadêmica (trabalho de conclusão, mestrado e doutorado) compreende:

Guiar e supervisionar o desenvolvimento da pesquisa acadêmica do estudante.

Auxiliar na escolha do tema, definição da metodologia e estruturação do trabalho.

Promover o pensamento crítico, a reflexão intelectual e a autonomia científica.

Realizar acompanhamento contínuo, revisões e discutir avanços e dificuldades.

Prover suporte técnico e motivacional ao longo do percurso do desenvolvimento do trabalho de conclusão, mestrado ou doutorado.

Facilitar o acesso a referências, redes de pesquisa e oportunidades acadêmicas.

Orientar sobre o cumprimento das exigências e etapas do programa de pós-graduação.

Referência:

MASSI, L.; GIORDAN, M. Formação do orientador de pesquisas acadêmicas: um estudo bibliográfico nacional e internacional. Revista Brasileira de Pós-Graduação, [S. l.], v. 14, n. 33, 2017. DOI: 10.21713/2358-2332.2017.v14.1375. Disponível em: https://rbpg.capes.gov.br/rbpg/article/view/1375. Acesso em: 19 nov. 2025.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Does writing a research paper feel like time travel? | Dr Priya Singh PhD💜MD (Hom.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Does writing a research paper feel like time travel? Because in one paragraph you're in the past, the next you're in the present, and by the conclusion, you're suddenly predicting the future. If you’ve ever felt like your research article is a grammatical rollercoaster, I get it. I’ve seen many freeze up not because they don’t know the science, but because they’re unsure if it's "examines" or "examined"? I was there too 😀 No one told us that mastering tense is half the battle in sounding like a confident academic writer. This tense roadmap 👇 I wish someone had handed me earlier Section-wise Guide to Tense Use: 1. Abstract ➡ Present tense: For purpose, key findings ➡ Past tense: For summarizing results/methods Example: This study explores…/ The analysis revealed… 2. Introduction ➡ Present tense: General facts & theories ➡ Past tense: Past studies or history Example: X is crucial for Y…/ Smith et al. (2021) demonstrated… 3. Methods ➡ Past tense: Always (it already happened) Example: We conducted a trial… ➡ Present tense: Only for describing a table or setup Example: Table 1 shows… 4. Results ➡ Past tense: For reporting findings Example: The data indicated… ➡ Present tense: For figures or patterns Example: Figure 2 illustrates… 5. Discussion ➡ Present tense: For interpreting meaning ➡ Past tense: To recap specific observations Example: These results suggest…/ This study observed… 6. Conclusion ➡ Present tense: For implications ➡ Future tense: For recommendations Example: This research shows… / Future studies will explore… Be consistent within each section
📌 Match the tense to intent: what happened (past), what it means (present), what's next (future) PS: What’s one section that always trips you up when writing?
Share in the comments. REPOST this to help others. | 46 comments on LinkedIn

# data[].attributes.headline
Como estruturar sua dissertação/tese em 6 capítulos

# data[].attributes.subject
Como estruturar sua dissertação/tese em 6 capítulos

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How to transform your PhD thesis chaos into a structured masterpiece. In just 6 weeks. Sophie came to me overwhelmed. Two years of research complete. 200 pages of random notes. Zero thesis structure. "I don't know where to start," she sobbed. I gave her the universal thesis roadmap. Clear structure every PhD needs. The 6-chapter framework that saved Sophie: Chapter 1: Setting the Scene - Define the problem and purpose - Craft research questions - Highlight significance Chapter 2: Building on Past Work - Literature review and research gap - Address existing challenges Chapter 3: Research Methodology - Establish framework - Data collection and analysis methods - Ethics considerations Chapter 4: Presenting Findings - Share results clearly - Summarize key discoveries Chapter 5: Reflecting on Findings - Discuss, compare, reflect - Offer practical recommendations Chapter 6: Concluding Insights - Summarize journey and insights - Acknowledge limitations - Recommend future research Plus the essential elements: - Impactful cover page - Personal acknowledgments - Engaging abstract - Detailed table of contents Sophie followed this roadmap religiously. 6 weeks later: Complete first draft. 12 weeks later: Thesis submitted. Passed with minor corrections. The secret: Every PhD journey is unique. But the thesis structure is universal. Which chapter feels most overwhelming to you right now? Follow me for more PhD completion strategies that actually work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to transform your PhD thesis chaos into a structured masterpiece. | Emmanuel Tsekleves

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How to transform your PhD thesis chaos into a structured masterpiece. In just 6 weeks. Sophie came to me overwhelmed. Two years of research complete. 200 pages of random notes. Zero thesis structure. "I don't know where to start," she sobbed. I gave her the universal thesis roadmap.

# data[].attributes.headline
Frases prontas/padrão por capítulo da dissertação/tese

# data[].attributes.subject
Frases prontas/padrão por capítulo da dissertação/tese

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
PhDs are you feeling overwhelmed with your thesis? | Emmanuel Tsekleves

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
PhDs are you feeling overwhelmed with your thesis? Get my FREE PhD Thesis Cheat Phrases by Chapter I've been there, spent years perfecting my approach, and noticed the struggle is real for many. That's why I've put together my PhD Thesis Cheat Phrases by Chapter - a lifesaver to kickstart your writing journey. Getting that PhD isn't a walk in the park, but the right tools can make climbing the mountain a bit easier. Download a high-res PDF with a click on the link in the comments. | 43 comments on LinkedIn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
✍️🎓Dear Researcher & PhD Scholar: Did you know there are 50 Genius Ways to use ChatGPT to level up your research, writing, and academic career❓ | Dr.K.VIJILA RANI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
✍️🎓Dear Researcher & PhD Scholar: Did you know there are 50 Genius Ways to use ChatGPT to level up your research, writing, and academic career❓ 🚀From brainstorming ideas to polishing manuscripts, ChatGPT is your 24/7 research partner. Whether you're just starting your PhD journey or knee-deep in your thesis, this👇 ultimate guide will transform how you work! 🔍 Let’s supercharge your PhD life — smarter, faster, better! 📌 RESEARCH & LITERATURE REVIEW 1.Generate literature summaries 2.Find relevant research questions 3.Extract key points from papers 4.Explain complex concepts simply 5.Translate articles to other languages 6.Create annotated bibliographies 7. Compare and contrast theories 8. Build research gap maps 9.Generate keywords for searches 10.Convert research articles into flashcards 📌 WRITING & PUBLISHING 11.Rewrite your abstract professionally 12. Improve grammar and tone 13. Generate multiple title options 14.Summarize findings in plain English 15. Polish your cover letter for journals 16.Create strong responses to reviewer comments 17.Paraphrase without losing meaning 18.Identify redundant sections 19.Create templates for your papers 20.Get suggestions on citation style corrections 📌THESIS & DISSERTATION HELP 21.Structure your chapters 22. Build strong introductions 23.Brainstorm discussion ideas 24.Summarize long thesis sections 25.Identify methodological flaws 26.Convert results into graphs (with tools) 27.Format your references 28.Find missing literature 29. Review for logical flow 30.Practice for your viva (mock Q&A) 📌DATA & ANALYSIS 31.Understand statistical techniques 32.Explain SPSS/R/Stata code 33.Suggest appropriate tests 34.Debug data analysis code 35.Simulate sample datasets 36 Help you write your methodology 37.Convert raw data into readable insights 38.Explain p-values & confidence intervals 39.Write Python/R Scripts 40 Design experimental frameworks 📌CAREER & COMMUNICATION 41.Write CVs for academia & industry 42.Draft postdoc application letters 43.Improve your LinkedIn summary 44.Practice academic interviews 45.Draft teaching philosophy statements 46.Generate email templates for networking 47.Simplify your research for public speaking 48.Translate your research to social media posts 49.Generate blog post drafts about your field 50.Explore non-academic career options 🚀 Whether you're writing, coding, job hunting, or presenting — ChatGPT can be your academic co-pilot . ♻️Save & Share this post with every PhD scholar you know! 😊Happy Researching & Best of Luck, Future Research Scholars! 👍 #PhDLife #AcademicWriting #ChatGPTForAcademia #PhDChat #ResearchTips #AIinAcademia #Research #ChatGPT #AI #AItools #GenAI #ResearchArticle #Researchwriting #ResearchCommunity #PhDSupport #LinkedInForAcademics #PostdocLife #PhDSkills #AcademicMentorship #LinkedInResearchers #ResearchTips
#PhD #LinkedIn #AcademicChatter #AcademicNetworking | 17 comments on LinkedIn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 programas de IA que transformarão a pesquisa universitária

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Descubra alguns dos programas de inteligência artificial mais importantes que estão mudando a maneira como os alunos praticam a pesquisa universitária.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
As melhores IAs para pesquisa acadêmica e científica | Na Prática

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Descubra as melhores IAs para pesquisa acadêmica e científica que otimizam revisões, redações e explorações de literatura de forma inteligente e eficiente.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
camuzi.net © 2025 by Ranieri Camuzi is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
camuzi.net © 2025 by Ranieri Camuzi is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
camuzi.net © 2025 by Ranieri Camuzi is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

# data[].attributes.headline
Elaborando projetos de pesquisa: o livro de receitas do(a) "chefe científico(a)"

# data[].attributes.subject
Elaborando projetos de pesquisa: o livro de receitas do(a) "chefe científico(a)"

# data[].attributes.headline
Análise de conteúdo categorial: manual de aplicação

# data[].attributes.subject
Análise de conteúdo categorial: manual de aplicação

# data[].attributes.body
📚 Para quem trabalha com pesquisa qualitativa, fica a dica.

Um guia claro, atualizado e robusto para aplicar análise de conteúdo com rigor metodológico, do planejamento à interpretação dos resultados.

# data[].attributes.body
Referências sugridas:

1. BACKES, C., J. S.; ERDMANN, R. H.; LUNARDI, V. L. Grupo focal como técnica de coleta e análise de dados em pesquisas qualitativas. O mundo da saúde, v. 35, n. 4, p. 438-442, 2011.
https://bvs.saude.gov.br/bvs/artigos/grupo_focal_como_tecnica_coleta_analise_dados_pesquisa_qualitativa.pdf

2. RESSEL, L. B.; BECK, C. L. C.; GUALDA, D. M. R.; HOFFMANN, I. C.; SILVA, R. M. D.; SEHNEM, G. D. O uso do grupo focal em pesquisa qualitativa. Texto & Contexto-Enfermagem, v. 17, p. 779-786, 2008.

https://www.scielo.br/j/tce/a/nzznnfzrCVv9FGXhwnGPQ7S/?format=pdf&lang=pt

3. NETO, O. C.; MOREIRA, M. R.; SUCENA, L. F. M.i. Grupos focais e pesquisa social qualitativa: o debate orientado como técnica de investigação. In: ENCONTRO DA ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE ESTUDOS POPULACIONAIS, 13. Anais...Ouro Preto, Associação Brasileira de Estudos Populacionais, 2002. Disponível em: <http://www.abep.nepo.unicamp.br/docs/anais/pdf/2002/Com_JUV_PO27_Neto_texto.pdf. Acesso em 10 de jun de 2022

# data[].attributes.headline
Confiança e Autenticidade na Pesquisa Qualitativa em Farmácia Social

# data[].attributes.subject
Confiança e Autenticidade na Pesquisa Qualitativa em Farmácia Social

# data[].attributes.body
Este artigo acadêmico oferece uma orientação essencial para pesquisadores que utilizam métodos qualitativos no campo da farmácia social. Os autores detalham os critérios de confiabilidade de Lincoln e Guba, abrangendo os pilares de credibilidade, transferibilidade, dependabilidade e confirmabilidade. Além disso, o texto explora o conceito de autenticidade, fornecendo definições teóricas e aplicações práticas para garantir o rigor científico. Por meio de exemplos da literatura especializada, a fonte busca elevar o padrão de qualidade e transparência nas investigações interpretativas sobre as percepções de pacientes e profissionais. O conteúdo serve como um roteiro para que estudiosos demonstrem a validade de suas descobertas em um cenário de pesquisa cada vez mais diversificado.

Amin, M. E. K., Nørgaard, L. S., Cavaco, A. M., Witry, M. J., Hillman, L., Cernasev, A., & Desselle, S. P. (2020). Establishing trustworthiness and authenticity in qualitative pharmacy research. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 16(10), 1472–1482. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SAPHARM.2020.02.005

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Please confirm you are a human by completing the captcha challenge below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Your lit review should NOT be a shopping list of papers
Think of it as conversation between researchers
Here's a simple guide (Save & Repost): 🔵 Start with your core theme Show how studies connect… | Razia Aliani | 26 comments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Your lit review should NOT be a shopping list of papers
Think of it as conversation between researchers
Here’s a simple guide (Save & Repost): 🔵 Start with your core theme Show how studies connect to each other. Don’t just list papers - tell their collective story. 🟢 Compare different viewpoints Some researchers say X, others argue Y. Your job? Explain why these differences matter. 🟡 Add your perspective But be smart about it. Back up your thoughts with evidence. 🟣 Show why it matters Explain the significance. Make readers care about your findings 🔴 Point out the gaps What’s missing in current research? This sets up your own work perfectly. 💬 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗮𝗱𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿? --------------------
Find it useful? 1. 🔄 Repost (& like)
2. Follow Razia to get useful Research content 3. Join 15K+ researchers & get FREE exclusive tips on using AI in research
🔗 below my name | 26 comments on LinkedIn

# data[].attributes.headline
Dicas para escrever uma boa revisão da literatura

# data[].attributes.subject
Dicas para escrever uma boa revisão da literatura

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗔 𝗚𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗟𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄 | Asma Azhar, PhD posted on the topic | LinkedIn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
𝗠𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘄𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗮𝘆 — and it’s costing them their credibility. 🔴
Here’s the hard truth:
A literature review is 𝗡𝗢𝗧 a list of summaries.
It’s not “Author A said X. Author B said Y.”
It’s a 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 built on 𝘀𝘆𝗻𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗱 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲.
The difference between a rejected paper and a published one often comes down to 𝗢𝗡𝗘 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴:
👉 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄.
After years of working with researchers across disciplines, here are the 𝟱 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀 I see constantly:
❌ 𝟭. 𝗡𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲
You started writing before answering: “What am I actually arguing?”
❌ 𝟮. 𝗦𝗰𝗼𝗽𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝗯𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗱 (𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗼𝘄)
Either you’re covering everything and saying nothing — or you’re too niche to matter.
❌ 𝟯. 𝗦𝘂𝗺𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘇𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝘆𝗻𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗶𝘇𝗶𝗻𝗴
You’re reporting what each paper says. You need to show what all papers together reveal.
❌ 𝟰. 𝗜𝗴𝗻𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝗴𝗮𝗽𝘀
The most valuable thing a literature review offers is NOT what we know — it’s identifying what we 𝗗𝗢𝗡‘𝗧 know.
❌ 𝟱. 𝗡𝗼 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗽𝗲𝘅
Your conclusion should make a bold, evidence-backed claim — not just say “more research is needed.”
✅ 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝘅? 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁.
Before you write a single sentence, you need:
→ A 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 (your foundation)
→ A 𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗽𝗲 (your property line)
→ A 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆 (your blueprint)
→ A 𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗿𝗶𝘅 (your excavation)
→ A 𝘀𝘆𝗻𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻 (your construction phase)
𝗢𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗱𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘄𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗲.
This is the exact 𝟯𝟬-𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝗳𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 I’ve mapped in my 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗠𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗠𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲 — covering everything from bibliometric scanning and theoretical framework selection to reconciling contrasting findings and crafting a conclusion that becomes a roadmap for future research.
𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱.
𝗜𝘁’𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗷𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗲𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘁. 🔎 If you’re struggling with 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄, writing your thesis, or publishing your research — 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗖𝗿𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗽.
📩 asma@researchcrave.com
🌐 www.researchcrave.com
WhatsApp: https://wa.link/bbvf22 #LiteratureReview #ResearchTips #AcademicWriting #PhDLife #ScholarlyWriting #ResearchMethodology #ThesisWriting #AcademicResearch #PublishOrPerish #ResearchCrave #StructuralMastery #GradSchool #ResearchSkills #AcademicSuccess | 40 comments on LinkedIn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Boost Your Lit Review with the Examiner's Framework | Emmanuel Tsekleves posted on the topic | LinkedIn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
45 PhD theses later, I can spot a weak lit review in 30 seconds. Every strong one follows this framework After examining 45+ PhD theses, I noticed the same lit review structure in every strong thesis. And a completely different structure in every weak one. I once had to tell a PhD student their literature review needed a complete rewrite. Six months of work. Gone. The problem was not effort. It was structure. Their review was a 40-page list of study summaries. “Fitzpatrick (2019) found this. Li et al (2025) found that.” Forty pages of it. No themes. No argument. No gap. I’ve seen this mistake in roughly 70% of the theses I examine. Students describe what others found. But they never explain why it matters or what is still missing. So I created what I call the Examiner’s Lit Review Framework. It works like a funnel. Start wide. End focused. Level 1: Broad context. What is the field and why does it matter right now? Level 2: Specific area. What do we already know from the research? Level 3: Critical gaps. What is missing, contested, or under-explored? Level 4: Your contribution. How does your study fill that gap? Every strong thesis I’ve examined follows this logic. The funnel forces you to move from description to argument. From “what exists” to “what’s missing” to “why my study matters.” The rules are simple: Synthesise by theme, not by author.
Group ideas, not studies.
Show how the field has evolved.
Always end with a clear gap statement. And whatever you do, stop listing studies one by one. That’s a bibliography, not a literature review. That student I mentioned? She rewrote her review in 3 weeks using this framework. Her examiner called it exemplary. Same researcher. Same topic. Same literature. Completely different result. The structure made the difference. What’s the biggest challenge with your lit review right now? Drop it below. Save this framework.
Repost for a colleague struggling with theirs. #LiteratureReview #PhDWriting I’ve expanded this into a full downloadable guide with annotated examples for each level of the funnel. See my comment below on how to access it. | 59 comments on LinkedIn