| dc.description.abstract | There are numerous opinions and
guidelines to select the most suited literature
to state of art reviews. Even it brewed the
most important articles align with the
availed guidelines, some literatures may be
providing controversial ideas. Whilst review
the literatures' outcomes, the common
practice is to assign equal weight to each
literature. Eventually, these important
controversial ideas conclude as a neutral
concept in state-of-art scenario, whilst real is
different. The initial discussion with the
worldwide academics and professionals
found that the novelty of the result and
soundness of interpretation needs to be
given weight rather than a source of
publication. In the case of young students,
such qualitative evaluation may direct errorprone conclusions due to less experience.
Hence, to handle the controversial factors,
novices require an accepted prioritization of
sources with credible weights to each. Then,
authors attempted to ask for the opinion of
the academics from different streams and
found there is a contradictory for
prioritization. The academics from
engineering discipline mostly trusted on
books and guidelines whilst computing
academics’ trust won by index journals.
As the base work of the present work is a
multidisciplinary research on HydroGIS
framework development, it faced a problem
when prioritise the literature sources.
By virtue of the identified possible sources of
publications through the collected literature
to the literature review for the work,
rationale for each source was developed
using the source credibility theory. The
rational was evaluated with thirty-four
academics & practitioners from different
disciplines. Further it gathered their
prioritization & weights for each source.
Then findings were evaluated with another
ten experts and discussed the outcome with
three senior academics & practitioners for
confirmation.
The present work found that the indexed
journal is the most trusted source of
information with a weight of 4.32 (out of 5)
whilst web documents with least trust
(1.49/5). Nevertheless, evaluation and
confirmation discussions stressed to utilize a
ratio of weights rather than numbered
weights. | en_US |
