Background: Systematic review or systematic literature review (SLR) methodologies are a powerful tool for evidence‐based decision making. The method originated in the medical sciences but has since been adopted by other disciplines, including engineering education (EE).Purpose: We aimed to answer two research questions: (i) To what extent is the SLR research method being applied in EE? (ii) How closely are SLRs published in EE following established reporting guidelines for the methodology?Scope/Method: We searched Inspec, Compendex, and ERIC for engineering‐related SLRs and meta‐analyses (MAs). We included English language papers that contained an explicit SLR search, or where it appeared the methodology was intended by the author(s). We completed a data extraction process for 21 descriptive and quality‐related items, including engineering discipline, which allowed us to identify the EE studies analyzed in this article.Results: This sub‐analysis presents the results of 276 EE‐related reviews. We found the use of SLR/MA methods is growing in EE, with 93% of papers published during 2015–2022. However, we found that authors are not generally following established guidelines for reporting their methods and findings.Conclusions: Not following the best practices for conducting and reporting SLRs can result in the presentation of incorrect summaries and analyses due to missed evidence. Including search experts (e.g., librarians) trained in conducting SLRs can improve review quality. There is also an opportunity for EE‐related publishers to recruit experts trained in conducting SLRs as peer reviewers to participate in evaluating submitted reviews.

A systematic review is a specialized type of literature review used to collect and synthesize all the available evidence related to a research question. The methods for systematic reviews should be transparent and reproducible so that other researchers can use, replicate, and build upon the findings. Systematic reviews have been published for decades in medical literature where it is necessary to bring together all the studies related to a particular disease or condition for healthcare professionals to make evidence-based recommendations. Conducting systematic reviews has expanded to other disciplines, including education, business, and engineering. The authors of this study conducted a scoping review to investigate how prevalent systematic reviews are in engineering and to what extent engineering authors are following published reporting guidelines. To conduct this study, the authors searched the databases Compendex, Inspec, and ERIC and retrieved 11,588 records. After removing duplicates and applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 3,066 articles remained in the final data set. The authors then used a checklist of bibliographic and quality-related items to extract data from each of these studies. The findings show that systematic reviews are a popular and rapidly growing methodology in engineering, internationally, but the quality of the studies, in terms of how authors construct and report their methods, is often low, resulting in many studies that are irreproducible and may fall short of the goal of gathering all the available evidence on a topic. The authors include recommendations for engineering authors, higher education administrators, and publishers.

Academic institutions around the United States are facing pressure to reduce tuition and fees in order to keep higher education accessible. Open Education Resource (OER) is one attempt by academic institutions to provide high quality education resources at a lower cost to students, by replacing traditional textbooks with freely available or low cost materials. Libraries as information experts play an active role in the implementation of OER. This article looks at the current state of OER and what potential impacts OER will have on libraries.

The gender wage gap impacts millions of women throughout the US and world, with women in the US making on average 82 percent of men’s salaries (US Census Bureau, 2018). In research libraries, a field dominated by women, this has historically been true as well, with men rising to top positions at a higher rate and making more money than women in the same positions. Over the decades following the implementation of Affirmative Action, the number of women in administrative positions in research libraries has increased dramatically. This article explores the issue of women’s salaries in research libraries in five job tiers. The five job tiers group library positions based on power dynamic, with the first tier including positions that run academic libraries, through the fifth tier, which includes front-line positions. An analysis of data from the Association of Research Libraries from 1976 through 2016 demonstrates that, though women have made progress in obtaining higher-level positions, salary disparities continue to exist between men and women at all levels.

The purpose of this systematic review was to examine if the motives of satisfaction with outcomes, enjoyment of behavior, self-determination, and identity are related to physical activity (PA) maintenance in older adults. We also explored whether the strength of these associations varies as a function of sample characteristics (i.e., age, gender, physical health status) and maintenance context. Five electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, SportDiscus, CINAHL, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses) were searched, and sixteen studies (k) with a sample mean age ≥ 55 years were included. When the number of studies was ≥ 5 for a given motive, a pooled correlation coefficient was calculated using the inverse-variance method under the random-effects model assumption. Self-determination was positively associated with PA maintenance [r (95% CI) = 0.189 (0.127, 0.249); k = 11]. This association was stronger and more homogeneous for samples described as having a physical health condition (r = 0.212; k = 6) and studies judged to be at risk of bias due to missing data (r = 0.223; k = 8). Few studies (< 5) investigated satisfaction with outcomes, enjoyment of behavior, and identity, which precludes any summary judgment for these three motives. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42018088161.