Guides Methodology
Each public guide carries its own "Methodological basis" panel. This page explains how sources were chosen, what each guide's scope and limitations are, its revision history, and the difference between the three kinds of guidance researchers often conflate.
How sources were selected
Sources are cited only where a guide makes a substantive methodological claim that depends on published literature — for example, why documenting decisions matters, or what a reporting guideline like PRISMA actually covers. Sources are peer-reviewed articles or established guideline statements in open-science, data-stewardship and qualitative-methods literature. They are cited to inform specific claims, never as a certification, endorsement or institutional standard that this product or guide holds.
Three different kinds of guidance
- Practical product guidance
- What these guides are: a vendor's suggested way of using Research Notebook's features to organize a study. Useful as a starting workflow, not binding on anyone.
- Reporting guidelines
- Frameworks like PRISMA specify what a finished piece of research must report and how, for a defined research type (e.g. systematic reviews). They are not project-management advice and do not apply automatically to every study of that broad kind.
- Binding institutional or funder requirements
- Your university, ethics board, publisher or funder may require specific methods, disclosures or formats. Those requirements always take precedence over anything in these guides.
Scope and revision history by guide
How to organize a research project
This guide describes a practical way to organize one research project inside Research Notebook. It is product guidance written by the vendor, not an institutional methodology standard, a funder requirement or a substitute for your program's or supervisor's guidance.
- 2026-08-26: Guide first published.
- 2026-09-05: Added a visible methodological provenance panel with sources, scope and limitations.
External methodological review: Not yet completed
How to organize a literature review
This guide describes a practical way to collect, read and synthesise sources for a literature review using Research Notebook's library and evidence matrix. It is product guidance, not a systematic-review protocol and not a reporting standard.
- 2026-08-26: Guide first published.
- 2026-09-05: Added a visible methodological provenance panel with sources, scope and limitations.
External methodological review: Not yet completed
Qualitative research audit trail
This guide describes how to build a qualitative audit trail using Research Notebook's pages, version history and activity log. It is product guidance, not a mandated procedure for any specific qualitative tradition.
- 2026-08-26: Guide first published.
- 2026-09-05: Added a visible methodological provenance panel with sources, scope and limitations.
External methodological review: Not yet completed
All references cited across guides
- Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., et al. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348(6242), 1422–1425. 10.1126/science.aab2374
- Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., et al. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, 3, 160018. 10.1038/sdata.2016.18
- Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
- Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. 10.1136/bmj.n71
- Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16. 10.1177/1609406917733847
- Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative Quality: Eight "Big-Tent" Criteria for Excellent Qualitative Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. 10.1177/1077800410383121