Systematic literature reviews seem very prevalent in some fields of science, but almost absent in other fields. Why? Is this a cultural difference?
Systematic, reproducible reviews are useful!
Does anyone here know of a systematic literature review in astro? #Astrodon
Perhaps these two papers in the astro-ph.CO category at least partially meet much of the "systematic" criteria you mentioned?
Dark energy two decades after: Observables, probes, consistency tests, by Dragan Huterer and Daniel L Shafer https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.01091
The Hubble Hunter's Guide, by Lloyd Knox and Marius Milliea
https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.03663
@jegpeek systematic is something like: reported database search criterium, inclusion and exclusion criteria and reported methodology of data extraction from the papers.
In the before mentioned example of H0 papers: which papers are in, why, and how do you use their reported values in your overview of the subject.
This is different from the "typical" review paper which often seems to be more of an opinion piece on the state of a subfield, where any given paper may or may not be cited.