How many papers support this gap analysis?

4 papers from our local library contribute to this synthesis, with an average publication year of 2015.

Can I get a manuscript addressing this gap reviewed here?

Yes — AI Review runs 8 specialised agents over the full PDF and returns a structured editorial report in one pass, for 30 credits. Start at /review. An open-access publication route is in preparation and is not open for submissions yet.

psychology4 papersavg year 2015weak evidence

The study had a limited number of studies available

Research gap analysis derived from 4 psychology papers in our local library.

The gap

The study had a limited number of studies available on the subject. The significant heterogeneity among studies made it challenging to conduct a meta-analysis. The study was limited by the databases accessible to the researchers and the art

Evidence profile

Sourced from the limitations section and limitations of the source papers, classified as general, drawn from work published between 1981 and 2026, spanning 4 journals.

Research trend

Established — well-defined area with open sub-problems.

Supporting evidence — 4 representative gaps

Audience uses and Gratifications: An Expectancy Model (1981) · Communication Research · doi
The study has a small sample size, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. The data were collected from a limited population (undergraduate students in communication). The study is illustrative rather than substantive due to low levels of viewing and problems of attrition.
generallimitations section
Keywords: study has small sample size limit generalizability findings
The Relationship Between Orthorexia Nervosa Tendencies, Eating Attitudes, and Obsessive Compulsive Symptoms of Nursing Students: A Cross-Sectional Study (2026) · Cyprus Turkish Journal of Psychiatry and Psychology · doi
This study encountered some limitations. First, this sample consisted mainly of female students. Secondly, due to the cross-sectional nature of the study, causality of the relationships could not be evaluated. Third, current results are based on self-reports, which may be subject to potential bias.
generallimitationsevidence 5/5
Keywords: encountered limitations first sample consisted mainly female students secondly cross sectional nature causality relationships evaluated
The concealed enslavement: Mobile phone addiction and subjective happiness among young adult Indian undergraduate women (2026) · Indian Journal of Forensic and Community Medicine · doi
The study had inherent limitations arising from its design, including the lack of a control group and randomization. The study was cross-sectional, so cause-and-effect relationships could not be ascertained. The study used self-reporting, which is not an ideal diagnostic tool. The study's sample was limited to female undergraduate students, which may limit generalizability to the entire population.
generallimitations sectionevidence 5/5
Keywords: study had inherent limitations arising design including lack
Use of Metaphors in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: A Systematic Review (2026) · Journal of Cognitive-Behavioral Psychotherapy and Research · doi
The study had a limited number of studies available on the subject. The significant heterogeneity among studies made it challenging to conduct a meta-analysis. The study was limited by the databases accessible to the researchers and the articles for which full access was available.
generallimitations sectionevidence 5/5
Keywords: study had limited number studies available subject significant

Questions about this gap

The study had a limited number of studies available on the subject. The significant heterogeneity among studies made it challenging to conduct a meta-analysis. The study was limite… This is supported by 4 representative gap statements extracted from 4 papers, rated weak evidence.

Explore this gap further

Run this gap as a query across open scholarly engines for the latest related literature.

Find research gaps on this topic →Google Scholar ↗Semantic Scholar ↗OpenAlex ↗Europe PMC ↗CORE ↗

Working on this gap? Review it with us.

Science AI Journal reviews manuscripts in one pass with 8 specialised AI agents calibrated on 69,000+ real peer reviews.

Run an AI review Run a pre-submission check

Tools for your next paper

Pre-CheckIs your paper ready? A Tier 1–5 acceptance probability in seconds.Journal FinderA ranked shortlist of target journals from a 17,500-venue index.Duplicate Publication CheckerCheck prior-publication & salami-slicing risk across 8 sources.Citation GeneratorFreeA DOI or title → APA, MLA, Vancouver, Chicago, BibTeX, RIS. No signup.Graphical Abstract MakerFreeTurn your findings into a colorblind-safe graphical abstract.AI Review8 specialist agents return an editor-ready review of your full PDF.

Compare the category — Honest roundups of the AI research tools, ours listed alongside the alternatives.