{{title}}: A Scoping Review
Question: What has been studied (and how) in {{topic}}? Date: {{date}} Sources consulted: {{sources}} Papers in corpus: {{total_papers}}
1. Background
Why scope this field? Who is the audience? What does the user need to plan next?
2. Scope question
Refined scope statement (broader than a PICO; narrow enough to be tractable).
3. Methods
Brief — scoping reviews use broad inclusion. Note minimum exclusion criteria only.
| Source | Cluster | Hits | Included |
|---|---|---|---|
| OpenAlex | {{...}} | {{n}} | {{n}} |
4. Coverage map
A matrix view of the field. Rows = subtopics, columns = methods (or populations, or settings). Cell = paper count.
| Subtopic ↓ / Method → | Method A | Method B | Method C | Method D |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subtopic 1 | n=12 | n=4 | — | n=1 |
| Subtopic 2 | n=2 | n=18 | n=6 | — |
| Subtopic 3 | — | — | n=3 | n=14 |
The empty cells are the gap.
5. Methods inventory
What methods has the field used? Brief description of each, with a representative paper.
- Method A: {{description}}. Representative: [^id]
- Method B: {{description}}. Representative: [^id]
6. Population / setting inventory
Same shape — what populations, models, or settings have been studied?
7. Subtopic narratives
One short paragraph per subtopic, with anchor pointers to the most representative work — not a full review of each.
7.1 {{Subtopic 1}}
{{paragraph with anchors}}
7.2 {{Subtopic 2}}
{{paragraph with anchors}}
8. Research gap
Synthesize the empty cells into a research gap statement. This is the deliverable.
- Gap 1: {{description}}
- Gap 2: {{description}}
- Gap 3: {{description}}
9. Recommendations for future work
- Most tractable next study: {{...}}
- Highest-impact next study: {{...}}
- Methodological recommendation: {{...}}
Appendix A — Methodology
{{search + ranking + dedupe stats}}
Appendix B — Self-critique
{{self_critique.appendix}}
Bibliography
{{rendered from export_bibtex.py}}