在研究团队进行系统评价时，用英语以外的语言发表的研究往往被忽视。有关在进行评论时如何处理非英语研究的文献集中在包括此类研究的重要性上，而较少关注定位和评估相关非英语学习的实际挑战。我们调查了可能预测非英语研究纳入社会科学系统评价的因素，为了更好地理解，何时以及为什么包括/排除这些内容。
我们评估了截至2016年7月发表的所有CampbellCollaboration系统综述（n=123），并根据其语言包容性对每个综述进行了分类。我们通过问卷从评论作者那里寻求更多信息，并收到了关于47条评论的回复。获得了17个因素的数据，我们通过统计回归模型探索了评论中非英语研究数量的相关性。此外,我们要求作者确定支持或阻碍纳入非英语研究的因素.
123条评论中,108没有明确排除，其中，17包括非英语语言研究。一个因素与所有模型中纳入的非英语研究的数量相关：审查小组成员工作的国家数量（B值=0.56；SEB=0.24；95％CI=0.07-1.03；p=0.02）。这表明，包括非英语研究在内的评论更有可能由国际审查小组编写。我们的调查显示，来自英语国家的研究人员占主导地位（52.9％），审查团队仅由来自这些国家的团队成员组成（65.9％）。最经常提到的包括非英语学习的挑战是缺乏资源（资金和时间），其次是缺乏语言资源（例如专业翻译）。
我们的研究结果可能表明非英语学习的有限纳入与资源缺乏之间的联系，这迫使审查团队依靠他们有限的语言技能，而不是专业翻译的支持。如果未解决，审查团队有可能忽视关键数据，并在其他高质量的审查中引入偏见。然而,如果我们要应对处理非英语学习的挑战，应该进一步评估我们发现的有效性和解释。
Studies published in languages other than English are often neglected when research teams conduct systematic reviews. Literature on how to deal with non-English studies when conducting reviews have focused on the importance of including such studies, while less attention has been paid to the practical challenges of locating and assessing relevant non-English studies. We investigated the factors which might predict the inclusion of non-English studies in systematic reviews in the social sciences, to better understand how, when and why these are included/excluded.
We appraised all Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews (n = 123) published to July 2016, categorising each by its language inclusiveness. We sought additional information from review authors via a questionnaire and received responses concerning 47 reviews. Data were obtained for 17 factors and we explored correlations with the number of non-English studies in the reviews via statistical regression models. Additionally, we asked authors to identify factors that support or hinder the inclusion of non-English studies.
Of 123 reviews, 108 did not explicitly exclude, and of these, 17 included non-English language studies. One factor correlated with the number of included non-English studies across all models: the number of countries in which the members of the review team work (B-value = 0.56; SE B = 0.24; 95% CI = 0.07-1.03; p = 0.02). This indicates that reviews which included non-English studies were more likely to be produced by international review teams. Our survey showed a dominance of researchers from English-speaking countries (52.9%) and review teams consisting only of team members from these countries (65.9%). The most frequently mentioned challenge to including non-English studies was a lack of resources (funding and time) followed by a lack of language resources (e.g. professional translators).
Our findings may indicate a connection between the limited inclusion of non-English studies and a lack of resources, which forces review teams to rely on their limited language skills rather than the support of professional translators. If unaddressed, review teams risk ignoring key data and introduce bias in otherwise high-quality reviews. However, the validity and interpretation of our findings should be further assessed if we are to tackle the challenges of dealing with non-English studies.
PDF(Sci-hub)