Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Toward Living Narrative Reviews: An Empirical Study of the Processes and Challenges in Updating Survey Articles in Computing Research

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Survey authors value living reviews but find continuous updating unmanageable, and interviews with 11 computing researchers show updates cluster into three types.

desk verdict A careful qualitative study whose three-type update taxonomy looks partly shaped by the interview prompt; the incentives finding is the sturdier contribution. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00881 v1 pith:RDXGAQR2 submitted 2025-02-02 cs.HC cs.DL

Raymond Fok , Alexa Siu , Daniel S. Weld This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.DL
keywords livingliteraturereviewsnarrativesurveyarticlescomputingresearchqualitativeinterviewsAI-assistedauthoringscholarlycommunicationupdateprocess
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper reports on interviews with 11 authors of computing survey articles to learn how narrative reviews are created and updated. It claims that authors see keeping surveys current as valuable to the community but find continuous updating impractical because it is costly, triggers cascading revisions, and is not rewarded by academic incentives. The authors argue that updates to a survey fall into three types—empirical, structural, and interpretative—each with distinct challenges and opportunities for AI assistance. If the claim holds, it gives an empirical foundation for building AI tools that monitor new literature, locate where changes are needed, and draft local revisions while leaving interpretive judgment to human experts.

What carries the argument

The paper's central analytical object is a three-part taxonomy of survey updates—empirical, structural, and interpretative—derived from the interview data. The taxonomy organizes the range of modifications authors imagine making: updating quantitative and qualitative evidence (empirical), revising organization and taxonomies (structural), and reinterpreting the synthesis and narrative framing (interpretative). The taxonomy carries the argument because it links each update type to specific leverage points for AI assistance, from recalculating values to proposing new section divisions, while explaining why interpretive synthesis is seen as the hard core that AI should only support, not replace.

What would settle it

A longitudinal or observational study would settle the claim: observe authors updating real survey articles over one to two years, recording live processes rather than recollections. If updates in practice do not cluster into the empirical, structural, and interpretative types, or if authors regularly update continuously when given modest institutional support, the paper's central generalizations would be weakened. A simpler check is a broad survey of survey authors asking whether they have ever published an update and what blocked them, looking for evidence that updating happens at scale without AI or incentive changes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that computing researchers who write narrative survey articles believe in the ideal of the 'living review' but do not practice it, because continuous updating is both a time cost and a career cost. Through thematic analysis of retrospective interviews, the paper identifies three kinds of updates that authors envision: empirical updates that add or revise evidence, numbers, tables, and examples; structural updates that reorganize taxonomies, sections, and frameworks; and interpretative updates that re-synthesize findings, limitations, and future directions. A key finding is that authors expect the original survey's organizational structure to stay stable for years, so most update effort concentrates on empirical and interpretative work, and that adding even one paper can force a cascade of revisions across text, figures, and conclusions. The authors conclude that the 'unmanageable' nature of this process, plus the absence of academic credit for updates, is the main obstacle to living narrative reviews, and they suggest AI could reduce routine costs but not replace the expert synthesis that gives surveys their value.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's findings stand on the assumption that what 11 researchers said in retrospective interviews about their authoring and updating practices matches what they actually did, so the reported update types and obstacles reflect real workflows rather than memory or rationalization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the three-type taxonomy holds, future 'living narrative review' tools can be structured by update type: automated recalculation and citation refresh for empirical updates, clustering and section-splitting suggestions for structural updates, and bias and gap detection with the author in the loop for interpretative updates.
  • Designers of AI support should expect authors to delegate only low-cost, verifiable tasks to automation, while tasks where mistakes cascade into the argument's conclusions will be kept under human control.
  • Because authors anticipate reusing original taxonomies and workflows, tools that preserve and reuse codebooks, search strings, and scripts from the original survey could lower the cost of updates more than general-purpose summarization.
  • Peer review and evaluation practices that count articles only at first publication will need to change if living narrative reviews are to become common; technology alone will not solve the incentive mismatch.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • My inference: the three update types likely generalize beyond computing surveys to narrative reviews in other fields that use semi-systematic methods, such as management, environmental science, or education, so the taxonomy could serve as a shared vocabulary across disciplines.
  • My inference: the paper's finding that authors fear AI would make surveys 'formulaic' suggests a design constraint: AI update assistants should aim at invisible consistency (numbers, references, organization) rather than producing prose that reads as template-generated, preserving the author's voice and the pleasure of reading.
  • My inference: a testable extension would be to instrument a living-review authoring environment to log actual update events and compare them against the taxonomy, converting the interview-derived categories into a measurable annotation schema.
  • My inference: the study implies that the unit of 'update' in citation counting and review metrics may need to be redefined; if updates were citable and peer-reviewed as contributions, the incentive barrier the authors identify could be partially dismantled.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a qualitative interview study of 11 corresponding authors of computing survey articles published in CSUR, CHI, and CSCW. Through semi-structured retrospective interviews, the authors examine how surveys are authored across search, appraisal, synthesis, and interpretation, and how authors envision updating them. The main findings are that authors value up-to-date surveys but find continuous updating unmanageable and misaligned with academic incentives; that envisioned updates fall into three types (empirical, structural, interpretative); and that authors are receptive to AI assistance for routine tasks but skeptical of AI for nuanced synthesis. The paper concludes with design implications for AI-assisted living narrative reviews.

Significance. The study addresses a real gap in the literature on living reviews, which has focused almost exclusively on systematic reviews. Its empirical grounding in interview data, with an explicit thematic-analysis codebook, direct participant quotes, and a full interview protocol in Appendix A, is a strength. The three-type typology, if robust, would provide a useful frame for system design. However, the small self-selected sample and the hypothetical, prompted nature of the updating data mean the findings should be treated as hypotheses about updating practices rather than as established facts. The paper is a useful empirical starting point but needs revision to support its strongest claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A / §4.2] The interview guide asks participants, "Which parts of the paper do you envision would change from these updates? For instance, could you speak to potential revisions regarding the existing text, structure, figures and tables, or other elements?" This prompt strongly primes a partition of updates into text/tables/figures versus structure, and the reported typology of empirical versus structural versus interpretative updates maps almost one-to-one onto that partition, with interpretative serving as a residual category for synthesis and framing. The paper presents this typology as an emergent finding, but it may instead be a coding artifact of the interview instrument. This matters because Table 2 and the design implications in §5.2.1 are organized around the three types. To support the typology, the authors should either provide evidence that participants spontaneously articulated these categories before the prompt was introduced, or explicitly reframe the typology as an analyst-imposed coding scheme rather than a participant-derived discovery.
  2. [§3.1 / §4.2] The sample consists of 11 self-selected corresponding authors, of whom 7 are PhD students, 3 are assistant professors, and 1 is a research engineer; there are no senior or full professors, and all are based in the US or Canada. The claim that continuous updating is "misaligned with academic incentives" is stated as a general finding about computing research, but the incentive perceptions of PhD students and early-career researchers may not reflect those of tenured faculty who have different publication pressures and more control over their time. The paper should either restrict the claim to the studied population or add an explicit discussion of this sampling limitation in §5.3, which currently only mentions recall bias.
  3. [Appendix A / §4.2] The updating data are entirely hypothetical: participants were asked to "walk me through how you would update this paper," and no participant actually updated a survey during the study. The findings in §4.2 on approaches and obstacles are therefore reports of intended, prompted actions rather than observed updating practice. The abstract and conclusion say the paper "identifies three key types of updates for maintaining narrative reviews," which overstates the evidentiary status. The authors should revise the language to reflect that these are envisioned update types, and add the hypothetical nature of the update task to the limitations in §5.3.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title] In the full-text rendering, the title appears as "Updati ng Survey Articles" with a stray space; this should be corrected.
  2. [§3.2] The mean age and standard deviation appear as raw unicode escape sequences ("/u1D440 = 32, /u1D446/u1D437 = 4.5"); these should be typeset properly.
  3. [§4.1 / Table 1] The text refers to P4 as "his own expertise," but Table 1 lists P4 as female; the pronoun should be corrected. The same sentence also contains a grammatical error: "made it challenge to" should be "made it challenging to."
  4. [§4.2 / Table 2] The paper alternates between "interpretative" and "interpretive" (e.g., §4.2 uses "interpretative" while Table 2 uses "Interpretative" but the abstract uses "interpretative" and other sections use "interpretive"); while both are acceptable, the usage should be consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's findings are qualitative interview themes with no fitted parameters, equations, or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper makes no derivation claim that reduces to its inputs. It reports a thematic analysis of 11 retrospective interviews and offers inductively labeled update types (empirical, structural, interpretive) plus author-reported obstacles and AI attitudes. There are no equations, no fitted parameters, and no normalization or modeling choices that could make an output equivalent to an input by construction. The three update types are presented as emergent themes from open coding, and although the Appendix A prompt asks about changes to 'existing text, structure, figures and tables, or other elements,' a concern about question wording is a validity or generalizability caveat, not a circularity reduction: the paper never defines the typology as that prompt's wording, and the interpretive category in particular goes beyond the primed dimensions. The study explicitly acknowledges the recall-bias limitation of retrospective interviews in Section 5.3. Prior work, including the authors' own Semantic Scholar, Semantic Reader, and related systems papers, is used only as background or related work, not as the evidence base for the central findings, so the self-citations are not load-bearing. The strongest claims—that authors see living surveys as valuable but unmanageable and misaligned with incentives, and that AI is viewed as useful for routine but not nuanced synthesis—are supported by direct participant quotes rather than by any cited prior result. The circularity burden for this paper is therefore minimal and does not warrant a non-zero score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a qualitative interview study, so there are no fitted numerical parameters or invented entities. The central claims rely on domain assumptions about the reliability of retrospective self-reports, the sufficiency of the sample, and the representativeness of the selected venues.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Participants' retrospective self-reports accurately describe their actual survey authoring and updating practices.
    All findings come from interviews (Section 3.2); recall bias is acknowledged as a limitation (Section 5.3).
  • domain assumption Thematic analysis of 11 interviews reaches theoretical saturation for the reported themes.
    The authors state they anticipated sufficient saturation (Section 3.1), but no saturation check or inter-rater reliability metrics are reported (Section 3.3).
  • domain assumption Corresponding authors of surveys in CSUR, CHI, and CSCW located in the US and Canada represent computing survey authors generally.
    Sampling is restricted to these venues, regions, and roles (Section 3); generalization to all of computing research is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Toward Living Narrative Reviews: An Empirical Study of the Processes and Challenges in Updating Survey Articles in Computing Research." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RDXGAQR2

@misc{pith2026250200881,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Toward Living Narrative Reviews: An Empirical Study of the Processes and Challenges in Updating Survey Articles in Computing Research},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RDXGAQR2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00881}
}
read the original abstract

Surveying prior literature to establish a foundation for new knowledge is essential for scholarly progress. However, survey articles are resource-intensive and challenging to create, and can quickly become outdated as new research is published, risking information staleness and inaccuracy. Keeping survey articles current with the latest evidence is therefore desirable, though there is a limited understanding of why, when, and how these surveys should be updated. Toward this end, through a series of in-depth retrospective interviews with 11 researchers, we present an empirical examination of the work practices in authoring and updating survey articles in computing research. We find that while computing researchers acknowledge the value in maintaining an updated survey, continuous updating remains unmanageable and misaligned with academic incentives. Our findings suggest key leverage points within current workflows that present opportunities for enabling technologies to facilitate more efficient and effective updates.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Elie A Akl, Joerg J Meerpohl, Julian Elliott, Lara A Kahal e, Holger J Schünemann, Thomas Agoritsas, John Hilton, Caroline Perron, Elie Akl, Rebecca Hodder, et al

    work page

  2. [2]

    Francisco Bolanos, Angelo Salatino, Francesco Osborne , and Enrico Motta. 2024. Artificial intelligence for literature reviews: Opportuni ties and challenges. Arti- ficial Intelligence Review 57, 10 (2024), 259. doi:10.1007/s10462-024-10902-3

    doi:10.1007/s10462-024-10902-3 2024

  3. [3]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using themati c analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

    doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa 2006

  4. [4]

    Kevin EK Chai, Robin LJ Lines, Daniel F Gucciardi, and Leo Ng. 2021. Research Screener: a machine learning tool to semi-automat e abstract screening for systematic reviews. Systematic reviews 10 (2021), 1–13. doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01635-3

    work page doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01635-3 2021

  5. [5]

    Jackie Chandler and Sally Hopewell. 2013. Cochrane meth ods-twenty years ex- perience in developing systematic review methods. Systematic reviews 2 (2013), 1–6. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-2-76

    work page doi:10.1186/2046-4053-2-76 2013

  6. [6]

    Jennifer Chubb, Peter Cowling, and Darren Reed. 2022. Sp eeding up to keep up: exploring the use of AI in the research process. AI & society 37, 4 (2022), 1439–1457. doi:10.1007/s00146-021-01259-0

    doi:10.1007/s00146-021-01259-0 2022

  7. [7]

    Julian H Elliott, Anneliese Synnot, Tari Turner, Mark Si mmonds, Elie A Akl, Steve McDonald, Georgia Salanti, Joerg Meerpohl, Harriet M acLehose, John Hilton, et al. 2017. Living systematic review: 1. Introduct ion—the why, what, when, and how. Journal of clinical epidemiology 91 (2017), 23–30. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.010

    doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.010 2017

  8. [8]

    Julian H Elliott, Tari Turner, Ornella Clavisi, James Th omas, Julian PT Higgins, Chris Mavergames, and Russell L Gruen. 2014. Living systema tic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap. PLoS medicine 11, 2 (2014), e1001603. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001603

    doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001603 2014

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Maria J Grant and Andrew Booth. 2009. A typology of review s: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health information & libraries journal 26, 2 (2009), 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.0084 8.x

    2009

  2. [10]

    Weld, and Marti A

    Andrew Head, Kyle Lo, Dongyeop Kang, Raymond Fok, Sam Sk jonsberg, Daniel S. Weld, and Marti A. Hearst. 2021. Augmenting Scient ific Papers with Just-in-Time, Position-Sensitive Definitions of Terms and Symbols. In Proceed- ings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com...

    2021

  3. [11]

    Leonie Heron, Diana Buitrago-Garcia, Aziz Mert Ipekci , Rico Baumann, Hira Imeri, Georgia Salanti, Michel Jacques Counotte, and Nicol a Low. 2023. How to update a living systematic review and keep it alive during a pandemic: a practical guide. Systematic Reviews 12, 1 (2023), ...

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Higgins, James Thomas, Jacqueline Chandle r, Miranda Cump- ston, Tianjing Li, Matthew J

    Julian P.T. Higgins, James Thomas, Jacqueline Chandle r, Miranda Cump- ston, Tianjing Li, Matthew J. Page, and Vivian A. Welch. 2019 . Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions . wiley, Chichester (UK). doi:10.1002/9781119536604 Publisher Copyright: © 2019 Th e...

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    Chao-Chun Hsu, Erin Bransom, Jenna Sparks, Bailey Kueh l, Chenhao Tan, David Wadden, Lucy Wang, and Aakanksha Naik. 2024. CHIME: LLM-Ass isted Hi- erarchical Organization of Scientific Studies for Literatu re Review Support. In Findings of the Association for Computational Ling...

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    Hyeonsu Kang, Joseph Chee Chang, Yongsung Kim, and Anik et Kittur. 2022. Threddy: An Interactive System for Personalized Thread-ba sed Exploration and Organization of Scientific Literature. InProceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Sym- posium on User Interface Software and Technolo...

    2022

  7. [15]

    Hyeonsu B Kang, Tongshuang Wu, Joseph Chee Chang, and An iket Kittur. 2023. Synergi: A Mixed-Initiative System for Scholarly Synthesi s and Sensemaking. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interfac e Software and Technology (Uist ’23). Association for Compu...

    2023

  8. [16]

    Alaa Al Khourdajie. 2024. The role of artificial intelli gence tools in climate change scientific assessments. doi:10.2139/ssrn.4747126 An Empirical Study of Updating Survey Articles in Computing Research CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    Wade, Linda Wagner, Lucy Lu Wan g, Chris Wilhelm, Caroline Wu, Jiangjiang Yang, Angele Zamarron, Ma deleine Van Zuylen, and Daniel S

    Rodney Kinney, Chloe Anastasiades, Russell Authur, Iz Beltagy, Jonathan Bragg, Alexandra Buraczynski, Isabel Cachola, Stefan Cand ra, Yoganand Chan- drasekhar, Arman Cohan, Miles Crawford, Doug Downey, Jason Dunkelberger, Oren Etzioni, Rob Evans, Sergey Feldman, Joseph Gorney,...

    2023 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    Wojciech Kusa, Petr Knoth, and Allan Hanbury. 2023. CRU ISE-Screening: Living Literature Reviews Toolbox. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Con- ference on Information and Knowledge Management (Birmingham, United King- dom) (Cikm ’23) . Association for Computing Mac...

    2023

  11. [19]

    Lasserson, Julian P.T

    Toby J. Lasserson, Julian P.T. Higgins, and Jackie Chan dler. 2019. Starting a review. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , Julian P.T. Higgins, Jackie Chandler, Miranda Cumpston, Tianjing Li, Matthew J. Page, and Vivian A. Welch (Eds.). Wiley, Uk, 1–12

    2019

  12. [20]

    Xiangci Li and Jessica Ouyang. 2024. Related Work and Ci tation Text Gener- ation: A Survey. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , Yaser Al-Onaizan, Mohit Bansal, and Yun-Nung Chen (Eds.). Association for Computational Ling...

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Kyle Lo, Joseph Chee Chang, Andrew Head, Jonathan Bragg , Amy X. Zhang, Cassidy Trier, Chloe Anastasiades, Tal August, Russell Aut hur, Danielle Bragg, Erin Bransom, Isabel Cachola, Stefan Candra, Yoganand Chan drasekhar, Yen- Sung Chen, Evie Yu-Yen Cheng, Yvonne Chou, Doug Do...

    2024

  14. [22]

    Hearst, and Do ngyeop Kang

    Anna Martin-Boyle, Aahan Tyagi, Marti A. Hearst, and Do ngyeop Kang

  15. [23]

    Lisa Messeri and MJ Crockett. 2024. Artificial intellig ence and illusions of understanding in scientific research. Nature 627, 8002 (2024), 49–58. doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07146-0

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    Matthew Michelson and Katja Reuter. 2019. The significa nt cost of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a call for greater involvement of machine learning to assess the promise of clinical trials. Contemporary clinical trials communications 16 (2019), 100443. doi:10.1016/j.con...

    2019

  17. [25]

    Meredith Ringel Morris. 2023. Scientists’ Perspectiv es on the Potential for Gener- ative AI in their Fields. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2304.01420 a rXiv:2304.01420 [cs.CY]

    2023 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    Benjamin Newman, Yoonjoo Lee, Aakanksha Naik, Pao Sian gliulue, Raymond Fok, Juho Kim, Daniel S Weld, Joseph Chee Chang, and Kyle Lo. 2 024. Arx- ivDIGESTables: Synthesizing Scientific Literature into Ta bles using Language Models. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empir...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Debajyoti Pati and Lesa N Lorusso. 2018. How to write a sy stematic review of the literature. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal 11, 1 (2018), 15–30. doi:10.1177/1937586717747384

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    Morton, M

    Paul Shekelle, Eduardo Ortiz, Shannon Rhodes, Sally C. Morton, M. Ec- cles, Jeremy M. Grimshaw, and Steven H. Woolf. 2001. Validit y of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality clinical practi ce guidelines: how quickly do guidelines become outdated? Jama 286 12 (2001), ...

    2001 doi

  21. [29]

    Kaveh G Shojania, Margaret Sampson, Mohammed T Ansari, Jun Ji, Steve Doucette, and David Moher. 2007. How quickly do systematic r eviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Annals of internal medicine 147, 4 (2007), 224–233. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-4-200708210-00179

    2007 doi

  22. [30]

    Mark Simmonds, Georgia Salanti, Joanne McKenzie, Juli an Elliott, Thomas Agoritsas, John Hilton, Caroline Perron, Elie Akl, Rebecca Hodder, Charlotte Pestridge, et al. 2017. Living systematic reviews: 3. Stati stical methods for updating meta-analyses. Journal of clinical epid...

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    Hannah Snyder. 2019. Literature review as a research me thodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of business research 104 (2019), 333–339. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    Strauss and J.M

    A. Strauss and J.M. Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. https://books.google.com/books?id=wTwYUnHYsmMC

    1998

  25. [33]

    James Thomas, Anna Noel-Storr, Iain Marshall, Byron Wa llace, Steven Mc- Donald, Chris Mavergames, Paul Glasziou, Ian Shemilt, Anne liese Synnot, Tari Turner, et al. 2017. Living systematic reviews: 2. Comb ining hu- man and machine effort. Journal of clinical epidemiology 91 (...

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    Andrea C Tricco, Jamie Brehaut, Maggie H Chen, and David Moher. 2008. Fol- lowing 411 Cochrane protocols to completion: a retrospective cohort study. PLoS One 3, 11 (2008), e3684. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003684

    2008 doi

  27. [35]

    Richard Van Noorden and Jeffrey M Perkel. 2023. AI and sci ence: what 1,600 researchers think. Nature 621, 7980 (2023), 672–675. doi:10.1038/d41586-023-02980-0

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    Laura Vergara-Merino, Catalina Verdejo, Cynthia Carr asco, and Manuel Vargas- Peirano. 2020. Living systematic review: new inputs and cha llenges. Medwave 20, 11 (2020), e8092. doi:10.5867/medwave.2020.11.8092

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    Huey, Rui Sheng, Saurabh Mehta , and Fei Wang

    Xingbo Wang, Samantha L. Huey, Rui Sheng, Saurabh Mehta , and Fei Wang. 2024. SciDaSynth: Interactive Structured Knowledge Extraction and Synthesis from Scientific Literature with Large Languag e Model. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2404.13765 arXiv:2404.13765 [cs.HC]

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    Yidong Wang, Qi Guo, Wenjin Yao, Hongbo Zhang, Xin Zhang , Zhen Wu, Meis- han Zhang, Xinyu Dai, Min Zhang, Qingsong Wen, Wei Ye, Shikun Zhang, and Yue Zhang. 2024. AutoSurvey: Large Language Models Can Automatically Write Surveys. In The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neur...

    2024

  31. [39]

    Jane Webster and Richard T. Watson. 2002. Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review. MIS Quarterly 26, 2 (2002), xiii–xxiii. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4132319

    2002

  32. [40]

    Michel Wijkstra, Timo Lek, Tobias Kuhn, Kasper Welbers , and Mickey Steijaert

  33. [41]

    What did you do next?

    Chang Xiao. 2023. AutoSurveyGPT: GPT-Enhanced Automa ted Literature Dis- covery. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User I n- terface Software and Technology (San Francisco, CA, USA) (UIST ’23 Adjunct) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY...

    2023

  34. [2017]

    Living guideline recom mendations

    Living systematic reviews: 4. Living guideline recom mendations. Journal of clinical epidemiology 91 (2017), 47–53. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.009

    2017 doi

  35. [2021]

    In Proceedings of the 11th Knowledge Capture Conference (Virtual Event, USA) (K-cap ’21)

    Living Literature Reviews. In Proceedings of the 11th Knowledge Capture Conference (Virtual Event, USA) (K-cap ’21). Association for Computing Machin- ery, New York, NY, USA, 241–248. doi:10.1145/3460210.3493 567

  36. [2024]

    doi:10.48550 /arXiv.2402.12255 arXiv:2402.12255 [cs.CL]

    Shallow Synthesis of Knowledge in GPT-Generated Text s: A Case Study in Automatic Related Work Composition. doi:10.48550 /arXiv.2402.12255 arXiv:2402.12255 [cs.CL]

    doi arXiv

  37. [9631]

    doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.538

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.