Phrasing in Reproducible Search Methodology: The Consequences of Straight and Curly Quotation Marks.

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Title:	Phrasing in Reproducible Search Methodology: The Consequences of Straight and Curly Quotation Marks.
Authors:	Barrick, Katie¹ wilsonkm@umn.edu, Riegelman, Amy² aspringe@umn.edu
Source:	College & Research Libraries. Nov2021, Vol. 82 Issue 7, p978-990. 13p.
Subject Terms:	*Research, Quotation marks, Search engines, Terms & phrases, Meta-analysis
Abstract:	In recent years, various disciplines have engaged in efforts to increase research reproducibility including the adoption of replicable search methodologies. With the development of reporting checklists and guidelines for systematic reviews such as the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement, authors are expected to transparently report search strategies. Replicable search strategies are critical since the included studies will be screened for inclusion in some forms of evidence synthesis, which could have practice and policy implications. In cases where search strategies miss germane literature, studies are open to further criticism and can face difficulties in peer review. In some cases, search strategies that contain nonalphanumeric or special characters may not retrieve pertinent literature due to a search platform's capacity for handling said characters. In this study, we explore issues with phrasing search strategies containing curly and straight quotation marks tested in 40 search platforms. The discovery platforms were tested using quotation characters and the absence of said characters to investigate platform behavior. Searches were categorized into one of five groups: CI (curly ignored), CA (curly acknowledged), CU (curly unclear), NP (no phrases), and UC (unsupported characters). The study found that 42.5 percent of platforms ignored curly quotation marks and interpreted the test term as a phrase, 30 percent of the bibliographic platforms acknowledged curly quotations and completed the phrase search, and one platform flagged curly quotation marks as an unsupported character. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
	Copyright of College & Research Libraries is the property of American Library Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database:	Education Research Complete

Description
Abstract:	In recent years, various disciplines have engaged in efforts to increase research reproducibility including the adoption of replicable search methodologies. With the development of reporting checklists and guidelines for systematic reviews such as the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement, authors are expected to transparently report search strategies. Replicable search strategies are critical since the included studies will be screened for inclusion in some forms of evidence synthesis, which could have practice and policy implications. In cases where search strategies miss germane literature, studies are open to further criticism and can face difficulties in peer review. In some cases, search strategies that contain nonalphanumeric or special characters may not retrieve pertinent literature due to a search platform's capacity for handling said characters. In this study, we explore issues with phrasing search strategies containing curly and straight quotation marks tested in 40 search platforms. The discovery platforms were tested using quotation characters and the absence of said characters to investigate platform behavior. Searches were categorized into one of five groups: CI (curly ignored), CA (curly acknowledged), CU (curly unclear), NP (no phrases), and UC (unsupported characters). The study found that 42.5 percent of platforms ignored curly quotation marks and interpreted the test term as a phrase, 30 percent of the bibliographic platforms acknowledged curly quotations and completed the phrase search, and one platform flagged curly quotation marks as an unsupported character. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:	00100870
DOI:	10.5860/crl.82.7.978