Sener_2018 - Factors impacting diverging paths of renewable energy: A review

Basic Article Info:

Article key Sener_2018
Title Factors impacting diverging paths of renewable energy: A review
Year 2018
Review type systematic review
Main topic Differences between countries in renewable energy deployment
Subjects area(s) Energy, Policy, administration and planning
Built environment scale Global / Country / Region
Application(s) Policy making
Geographically focused no
Prisma diagram used no
Study focus start 1949
Study focus end 2013
Search string not provided
No. of original sources 60
Synthesis method qualitative
Quantitative map included yes
Conflict of interest not declared specifically
Comments

 

Details about searches

Search sources
Search source name Source type Comments Weblink
Google Scholar Online Database Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines. Released in beta in November 2004, the Google Scholar index includes most peer-reviewed online academic journals and books, conference papers, theses and dissertations, preprints, abstracts, technical reports, and other scholarly literature, including court opinions and patents. https://scholar.google.com.au/
Science Direct Online Database ScienceDirect is a website which provides subscription-based access to a large database of scientific and medical research. It hosts over 12 million pieces of content from 3,500 academic journals and 34,000 e-books. https://www.sciencedirect.com/
JSTOR Online Database JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary sources. https://www.jstor.org/
Keywords used in search barrier, consumption, deployment, driver, investment, supply

 

Authorship

Authors
Name Email Organisation Address Country
Serife Elif Can Sener* scan@clemson.edu Clemson University, College of Behavioral, Social and Health Sciences 321 Brackett Hall, Clemson, SC 29634, USA United States of America
Julia L. Sharp jlsharp@colostate.edu Colorado State University, Department of Statistics 225 Statistics Building, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA United States of America
Annick Anctil anctilan@msu.edu Michigan State University, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering 1449 Engineering Research Ct., East Lansing, MI 48824, USA United States of America

 

Funding

Funding sources No funding sources recorded


Article publication information:

Article type Journal article
Article category Text
Geographical scale
Language English
Chapter or part
Conference date
Conference venue
Published date 2017-07-14
Edition
Issue
Journal Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
Pagination 2335-2342
Peer reviewed yes
Publication place
Publisher Elsevier
School / department or centre
Series volume no.
Series title
Series sort no.
Volume 81
Website owner
Copyrights of article Elsevier Ltd.
Licences of article Open Access:
Identifiers of article DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.042, ISSN: 18790690


Quality assessment

Quality measure Details Score Comments
QA question 1 Are the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review clearly delineated? 1 = “Yes” = Who (Population), What (Intervention, Comparator group, Outcome), Where and When described. general but concrete description of aims
QA question 2 Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? 0 = ”No” = research question and inclusion criteria not outlined in detail. not provided
QA question 3 Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? 0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” =Cannot decide between “yes” and “no”, basing on the information provided in the paper. various types of studies for the scoping/mapping purpose
QA question 4 Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? 0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” = searched at least 2 databases (relevant to research question), provided key word and/or general search strategy, justified publication restrictions (e.g., language). 3 databases and references
QA question 5 Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? 0 =”No” = only one reviewer involved in the study selection or no description how many reviewers participated in study selection. No description how many reviewers participated
QA question 6 Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? 0 =”No” = only one reviewer involved in the study selection or no description how many reviewers participated in data extraction. No description how many reviewers participated
QA question 7 Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? 0 =”No” = No list of studies excluded at a full-text stage. not provided
QA question 8 Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? 0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” = Who (Population), What (Intervention, Comparator group, Outcome), Where and When briefly described, or only some of these described in detail. Cannot decide between “yes” and “no”, basing on the information provided in the paper. Figure 3
QA question 9 Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? 0 =”No” = no mention of RoB assessment of individual included studies. not provided
QA question 10 Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? 0 =”No” = no report of the sources of funding for individual studies included in the review. not provided
QA question 11 If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 12 If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 13 Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/ discussing the results of the review? 0 =”No” = no discussion of the potential impact of RoB in individual studies. not provided
QA question 14 Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? 1 = “Yes” = There was no significant heterogeneity in the results OR if heterogeneity was present the authors performed an investigation of sources of any heterogeneity in the results and discussed the impact of this on the results of the review. general discussion
QA question 15 If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 16 Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? 1 = “Yes” = The authors reported no competing interests OR the authors described their funding sources and how they managed potential conflicts of interest. Funding sources disclosed in "Acknowledgements"
Quality index Overall rating (Quality Index) assigned to each SR, highlighting whether major concerns arose during quality assessment that may affect overall conclusions of a SR: A = Minimal flaws; B = Some flaws; C = Major flaws in many aspects of the review. B no protocol, some details missing, some bias might be present
Suggested review type Actual review type:systematic map, systematic review, rapid review, scoping review, narrative review, etc. systematic map N/A
Risk of bias level How likely are the main conclusions of the review to be biased? Basing on review type and quality index and quality_index_comment assign: high moderate or low risk? medium no protocol, some details missing, some bias might be present