Document database coverage, especially when using LLM-based tools (Collect)

Report which databases, APIs, and indexes were searched—and what parts of the literature they do and do not cover.

Why this matters

• Interpretable scope: Coverage determines what the evidence base can legitimately claim (and what it cannot).
• Publisher and access bias: Some sources are skewed toward particular publishers, regions, venues, or document types.
• Open-access constraints: API-based and LLM-supported workflows may disproportionately rely on open-access or freely retrievable content, which can systematically exclude paywalled literature and bias conclusions.

Practical implementation

• List every source searched (database/API), the date(s) of search, and the exact query version used.
• Describe key coverage characteristics (e.g., disciplines, publication types, language/region, major publisher concentration).
• Explicitly state access limitations (e.g., “API returns only open metadata,” “full texts available primarily for OA items,” “LLM extraction limited to accessible PDFs”).

Resources

• Coverage of platforms, such as Scopus or Web of Science