How many papers support this gap analysis?

4 papers from our local library contribute to this synthesis, with an average publication year of 2026.

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 2026weak evidence

The study has a cross-sectional design, which limits

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

The gap

The study has a cross-sectional design, which limits the ability to establish causality. - The study sample is limited to patients admitted to the National Institute of Gerontology and Geriatrics. - The study does not report on the long-ter

Evidence profile

Stated in the limitations and cells limitations sections of the source papers, classified as general, spanning 4 journals.

Research trend

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

Supporting evidence — 4 representative gaps

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.
generalstated in limitationsevidence 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&amp;nbsp; (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.
generalstated in cells limitationsevidence 5/5
Keywords: study had inherent limitations arising design including lack
Motor and functional correlates of cognitive performance in older adults (2026) · Romanian Journal of Neurology · doi
The study has a cross-sectional design, which limits the ability to establish causality. - The study sample is limited to patients admitted to the National Institute of Gerontology and Geriatrics. - The study does not report on the long-term outcomes of the participants.
generalstated in cells limitationsevidence 5/5
Keywords: study has cross-sectional design limits ability establish causality
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.
generalstated in cells limitationsevidence 5/5
Keywords: study had limited number studies available subject significant

Questions about this gap

The study has a cross-sectional design, which limits the ability to establish causality. - The study sample is limited to patients admitted to the National Institute of Gerontology… 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.