From Knowledge Mapping to Evidence Synthesis: A Critical Path Model for Constructing Coherent Scientific Texts
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17309/tmfv.2026.3.01Keywords:
critical path model, knowledge synthesis, evidence synthesis, academic writing, methodological framework, systematic review, physical education, sport scienceAbstract
Background. Contemporary academic writing practice is increasingly determined by standardized requirements for publication structure and typologies of review studies. At the same time, formal compliance with these standards does not guarantee the methodological coherence of a scientific text, as the logic of knowledge formation often remains unarticulated.
Purpose. To propose a critical path model of knowledge synthesis, within which the preparation of a scientific text is considered as a sequential cognitive process governed by an invariant logic of epistemological operations.
Materials and Methods. The study was conducted in the format of a conceptual narrative review involving methodological works on evidence synthesis, typologies of review studies, and academic writing. The analysis was aimed at reconstructing functional cognitive operations, establishing causal relationships between them, and formalizing their sequence in the form of a critical path.
Results. Five invariant cognitive nodes were identified: orientation, conceptualization, verification, evidence synthesis, and interpretation. It was shown that these nodes form a critical path that determines the methodological coherence of a scientific text regardless of the publication genre. It was established that different types of reviews correspond to individual segments of this path but do not determine its logic. Typical violations of the critical path were identified, including meta-analysis without conceptualization, narrative generalizations without verification, and systematic reviews without orientation in the scientific field, which lead to predictable methodological deformations.
Discussion. The obtained results indicate that methodological problems of contemporary scientific texts have a structural character and are associated with the substitution of the logic of cognition by genre-based and formal requirements. The proposed model makes it possible to interpret these violations as consequences of disruptions in causal relationships between cognitive operations.
Conclusions. The methodological correctness of a scientific text is determined not by its formal type, but by the consistency of the preparation trajectory with the critical path of knowledge synthesis. The proposed model provides a basis for improving the quality of academic writing, peer review, and editorial evaluation.
Downloads
References
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5, 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69
Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (Eds.). (2019). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (2nd ed.). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604
St. Pierre, E. A. (2007). Writing as method. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology. Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosw029 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosw029
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., … Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Oleg Khudolii, Olha Ivashchenko, Mykola Khudolii
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
