Sources
This file lists the pool of sources behind the review, with how each was found and how good it is; the search itself is in protocol.
Flow
| Stage | Formal | Grey |
|---|---|---|
| Returned by the strings | not recorded | not recorded |
| Screened | not recorded | not recorded |
| Included as new | 55 | 19 |
| Carried from the earlier pass | 52 | 20 |
| In the review | 107 | 39 |
- Formal:
- 52 sources were in the pool before the first round of the review, built by narrative search and snowballing.
- The strings E, F and G of the first round found 12, and the second round (Q7 and Q8) found 43, which gives 55 as new.
- Returned and screened counts are given per string in the protocol, with no total by kind.
- Grey:
- 20 sources were in the pool before the first round.
- The first round found 4 and the second round 15, which gives 19 as new.
- Of the 39 grey sources, 20 score at or above 10 of 20 and 19 score below it (examples of practice only).
In the review: the presentations source rows of each kind, counted by script.
The figure draws the stages of the table for presentations.
- Strings: first round 6 existing-review (E), 2 follow-up (F), 12 grey (G); Q7 and Q8 round 7 existing-review (E7 to E13), 23 formal database strings (H, M, V), 19 grey (G13 to G31). That is 69 strings and 628 results screened in all (225 and 403).
- Excluded without opening: blogs and template vendors (tier 3), event listings, repeats, papers on web pages, packaging and marketing colour. Seen, not read: two IEEE guides (certificate error), a Tufte page on projection backgrounds (HTTP 403), a science-communication colour PDF.
- Not included though seen in a summary: a repository review of 31 PowerPoint studies; a 2025 review of teachers' gesture experiments.
- Also not included: a 2020 meta-analysis of signaling in training (abstract fragment only), and a study of sequential display and retention seen as an abstract in a Geneva archive.
Subtotals of grey sources
Scores for the Q7 and Q8 round were read from the page or the PDF on 2026-10-28. Each score's impact column credits wide use on what the page says about itself, unless a count is named. Each score's quality field gives the eight subtotals of the method in its order, A to T, then the total out of 20. A book marked "catalogue page only" or "not read" is scored on what its page or earlier notes show.
Grey sources
| Key | Kind | Found via | Quality | Used in |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TED 2026 | grey, owner guide (tier 2) | prior pool; G1 | 3/4/0/0.5/0/1/0.5/0.5 = 9.5 (below 10) | review 6, baseline, 8 |
| Duarte 2008 | grey, book (tier 1), catalogue page only | prior pool | 4/3/0.5/1/0.5/1/0.5/1 = 11.5 | review 6 |
| Duarte 2010 | grey, book (tier 1), catalogue page only | prior pool | 4/2.5/0.5/1/0.5/0.5/0.5/1 = 10.5 | review 6 |
| Duarte 2026 | grey, owner guide (tier 2) | prior pool | 2/2/0/0/0/0.5/0/0.5 = 5 (below 10) | review 6, position |
| Reynolds 2008 | grey, book (tier 1), catalogue page only | prior pool; G12 | 3.5/3.5/1/1/0.5/1/0.5/1 = 12 | review 6 |
| Anderson 2016 | grey, book (tier 1), catalogue page only | prior pool | 3.5/2.5/0.5/1/0/0.5/0.5/1 = 9.5 (below 10) | review 6 |
| Kawasaki 2005 | grey, blog (tier 3), archived post read | prior pool | 2.5/2/0/1/0/0.5/0.5/0 = 6.5 (below 10) | review 6 |
| Beamer 2026 | grey, software manual (tier 1) | prior pool | 4/3/2/1/0/0.5/0.5/1 = 12 | review 4, 6, baseline, 7, 8 |
| PechaKucha 2026 | grey, owner page (tier 2) | prior pool; G8 | 2.5/2/0/0/0/0.5/0.5/0.5 = 6 (below 10) | review 6, state of the art |
| Ignite 2026 | grey, owner page (tier 2) | prior pool; G8 | 2/2/0/0/0/0.5/0.5/0.5 = 5.5 (below 10) | review 6, state of the art |
| Bezos 2018 | grey, annual report letter (tier 2) | prior pool; G6 | 4/3/0.5/1/0/1/0.5/0.5 = 10.5 | review 6, position |
| Microsoft 2019 | grey, company blog (tier 3) | prior pool | 3/1.5/0/1/0/0.5/0.5/0 = 6.5 (below 10) | review 6, state of the art |
| Microsoft 2026d | grey, support page (tier 2) | prior pool | 3/2.5/1.5/0/0/0.5/0.5/0.5 = 8.5 (below 10) | review 4, baseline, 8 |
| Leonhard Center 2026 | grey, owner site (tier 2) | prior pool; G5 | 4/3.5/0/0/0/0.5/0.5/0.5 = 9 (below 10) | against, position |
| Minto 1987 | grey, book (tier 1), not read | prior pool | 3/2.5/0.5/1/0/1/0.5/1 = 9.5 (below 10) | review 6 |
| Tufte 2003 | grey, book (tier 1), not read | prior pool | 3.5/3.5/1.5/1/0.5/1/0.5/1 = 12.5 | review 2, against |
| CAIB 2003 | grey, government report (tier 1) | prior pool | 4/5.5/4/1/1/1/1/1 = 18.5 | review 2, against |
| W3C 2023b | grey, standard (tier 1) | prior pool | 4/5/3/1/1/0.5/1/1 = 16.5 | review 4, baseline |
| Access Board 2017 | grey, government standard (tier 1) | prior pool | 4/5.5/3.5/1/1/0.5/1/1 = 17.5 | review 4, baseline |
| AVIXA 2016 | grey, standard (tier 1), formula via secondary | prior pool | 4/5/2.5/1/0.5/1/0.5/1 = 15.5 | review 4 |
| Rector 2019 | grey, owner guide (tier 2) | G9; derived guides cite it | 4/4/2/1/0.5/1/1/0.5 = 14 | review 6, position, 7, 8 |
| ACM 2026 | grey, owner guide (tier 2) | G3 | 2/3.5/2/0.5/0.5/0.5/0/0.5 = 9.5 (below 10) | review 6 (example only), 8 |
| Bramble 2026 | grey, teaching centre guide (tier 2) | G4 | 2.5/4/2.5/0/1/0.5/0/0.5 = 11 | review 6, position, 7, 8 |
| SSP 2026 | grey, society guide (tier 2) | G2 | 2/3/2/0.5/0/1/0/0.5 = 9 (below 10) | review 6 (example only), 8 |
| Wilke 2019 | grey, book with free text (tier 1) | Q8, added directly | 3.5/4/3/1/0.5/1/0.5/1 = 14.5 | review 8 |
| EU 2023 | grey, official guide (tier 1) | G16 | 3.5/3/3.5/1/0.5/1/0.5/1 = 14 | review 8 |
| ScotGov 2024 | grey, government design system (tier 1) | G18 | 3.5/2.5/3/1/0.5/0.5/0.5/1 = 12.5 | review 8 |
| Matplotlib 2026 | grey, software manual (tier 1) | Q8, added directly | 3.5/3.5/3.5/1/0.5/1/0.5/1 = 14.5 | review 8 |
| Schwabish 2014 | grey, blog (tier 3) | G14 | 2.5/0.5/1/0/0.5/0.5/0/0 = 5 (below 10) | review 8 (example only) |
| Ethos3 2026 | grey, company blog (tier 3) | G15 | 1.5/0.5/0/0/0/0/0.5/0 = 2.5 (below 10) | review 8 (example only) |
| LornaJane 2017 | grey, blog (tier 3) | G20 | 2.5/1.5/2/0.5/0.5/1/0.5/0 = 8.5 (below 10) | review 7 (example only) |
| Mozilla 2026 | grey, wiki (tier 2) | G20 | 2/1/2.5/0/0/0/0/0.5 = 6 (below 10) | review 7 (example only) |
| Nederbragt 2016 | grey, organisation blog (tier 2) | G23 | 3/2/3/0.5/1/1/0.5/0.5 = 11.5 | review 7 |
| Microsoft 2026e | grey, support page (tier 2) | G19 | 2.5/1/0.5/0.5/0/0.5/0.5/0.5 = 6 (below 10) | review 7 (example only) |
| Sanderson 2026 | grey, owner page (tier 2) | G22 | 3/1/1/0.5/0/1/1/0.5 = 8 (below 10) | review 7 (example only) |
| W3C 2023d | grey, standard (tier 1) | Q7, added directly | 4/5/3.5/1/1/0.5/1/1 = 17 | review 7, baseline |
| W3C 2023c | grey, standard (tier 1) | Q8, added directly | 4/5/3.5/1/1/0.5/1/1 = 17 | review 8, baseline |
| Pichler 2023 | grey, thesis (tier 1) | E13 | 2.5/3.5/3.5/1/1/1/0/1 = 13.5 | review 7 |
| Simpleshow 2021 | grey, company white paper (tier 2) | E13 | 1.5/1/0/0.5/0/0.5/0.5/0.5 = 4.5 (below 10) | review 7 (example only) |
Formal sources
| Key | Kind | Found via | Evidence grade | Used in |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adesope 2012 | formal | prior pool | measured | review 1 |
| Alley 2005 | formal | prior pool | supported with caveat (title only) | review 2 |
| Alley 2006 | formal | prior pool | supported with caveat (title only) | review 2 |
| Alley 2007 | formal | snowball from Bramble 2026; F1 | supported with caveat (bundled with active learning) | review 2, against |
| Alley 2013 | formal | prior pool | convention (book) | baseline |
| Alon 2009 | formal | prior pool | convention, untested (title only) | frame |
| Alzayed 2023 | formal | prior pool; forward from Garner 2013 | supported with caveat | review 2 |
| Baker 2018 | formal | prior pool | measured | review 0, 2 |
| Bakcek 2020 | formal | G8 | supported with caveat (one randomised trial, n = 134) | review 6, state of the art |
| Blome 2017 | formal | E3 | measured, descriptive (systematic review of expert opinion) | review 0 |
| Bradbury 2016 | formal | prior pool | measured | review 5, against |
| Carter-Thomas 2003 | formal | prior pool | convention, untested (methods paper) | review 5 |
| Castro-Alonso 2021 | formal | prior pool | measured | review 3 |
| Cromley 2025 | formal | E2 | measured (secondary) | review 0 |
| Dargue 2019 | formal | prior pool | measured | review 3 |
| Dubois 1980 | formal | prior pool | measured, descriptive (title only) | review 5 |
| Fiorella 2019 | formal | prior pool | supported with caveat | review 3 |
| Garner 2013 | formal | prior pool | supported with caveat (one lab experiment) | review 2 |
| Ginns 2005 | formal | prior pool | measured (full text) | review 1 |
| Heidig 2024 | formal | E4 | supported with caveat (three field studies, small n) | review 0, 3 |
| Henderson 2021 | formal | prior pool | measured (systematic review) | review 3 |
| Hood 2005 | formal | prior pool | measured, descriptive (title only) | review 5 |
| Hostetter 2011 | formal | prior pool | measured | review 3 |
| Issa 2013 | formal | prior pool | supported with caveat | review 2 |
| Kalyuga 1999 | formal | prior pool | supported with caveat | review 1 |
| Kalyuga 2014 | formal | prior pool | supported with caveat (chapter) | review 1 |
| Kizilcec 2015 | formal | prior pool | measured (field experiment, N = 12,468) | review 3 |
| Kosslyn 2012 | formal | prior pool | measured, descriptive | review 2 |
| Le Blanc 2025 | formal | G4 | measured, descriptive (one school) | review 2 |
| Legge 2011 | formal | prior pool | measured (review) | review 4 |
| Levasseur 2006 | formal | prior pool | supported with caveat (research review) | review 2 |
| Liao 2020 | formal | G8 | supported with caveat (three classes) | review 6 |
| Marty-Dugas 2024 | formal | prior pool | supported with caveat | review 3 |
| Mayer 2012 | formal | prior pool | supported with caveat | review 1, 3 |
| Mayer 2014a | formal | prior pool | supported with caveat (chapter) | review 1 |
| Mayer 2014b | formal | prior pool | supported with caveat (chapter) | review 1 |
| Mayer 2014c | formal | prior pool | supported with caveat (chapter) | review 3 |
| Mayer 2017 | formal | prior pool | supported with caveat (review, secondary) | review 1 |
| Mayer 2020 | formal | prior pool | supported with caveat (book) | review 1 |
| Mueller 2014 | formal | prior pool | supported with caveat (not replicated, see Urry 2019) | review 2 |
| Noetel 2022 | formal | E2 | measured (overview of 29 reviews) | review 0, 1, 7 |
| Peyton Jones 1993 | formal | prior pool | convention, untested | review 6, baseline |
| Piepenbrock 2013 | formal | prior pool | measured | review 4, 8 |
| Polat 2022 | formal | E4 | supported with caveat (systematic review, 41 studies) | review 0, 3 |
| Rello 2016 | formal | prior pool | supported with caveat | review 4 |
| Rey 2019 | formal | prior pool | measured | review 1 |
| Richter 2016 | formal | prior pool | measured | review 1, 8 |
| Rowley-Jolivet 2002 | formal | prior pool | measured, descriptive (secondary) | review 5 |
| Rowley-Jolivet 2005 | formal | prior pool | measured, descriptive | review 5 |
| Rowley-Jolivet 2012 | formal | prior pool | measured, descriptive (secondary) | review 5 |
| Root Kustritz 2014 | formal | snowball from Bramble 2026; F1 | supported with caveat (not randomised, one course) | review 2 |
| Savoy 2009 | formal | prior pool | supported with caveat (full text read) | review 2 |
| Schneider 2018 | formal | prior pool | measured | review 1, 8 |
| Sripradith 2023 | formal | prior pool; forward from Garner 2013 | supported with caveat | review 2 |
| Sundararajan 2020 | formal | prior pool | measured | review 1 |
| Urry 2019 | formal | prior pool | measured (replication) | review 2 |
| Warmuth 2021 | formal | G8 | supported with caveat (between subjects, n = 48 and 25) | review 6 |
| Wilson 2007 | formal | prior pool | measured (review) | review 5 |
| Wolfe 2023 | formal | prior pool; forward from Garner 2013 | supported with caveat (pilots) | review 2 |
| Wolfe 2025 | formal | prior pool; forward from Garner 2013 | supported with caveat | review 2 |
| Worthington 2015 | formal | prior pool | supported with caveat (not randomised; full text read) | review 2 |
| Xu 2022 | formal | prior pool | measured, descriptive | review 5 |
| Yue 2013 | formal | prior pool | supported with caveat | review 1 |
| Zhu 2024 | formal | E4 | measured (meta-analysis, secondary) | review 0, 3 |
| Ozcelik 2009 | formal | H1 | supported with caveat (one experiment, n = 52; abstract and listing) | review 8 |
| Plass 2014 | formal | named in the question | supported with caveat (listing only; its colour manipulation is described in Brom 2018) | review 8 |
| Um 2012 | formal | H2 | supported with caveat (one experiment, N = 118; abstract) | review 8 |
| Brom 2018 | formal | named in the question | measured (meta-analysis, 33 samples, N = 2,924; read in the author's manuscript) | review 0, 8 |
| Wong 2020 | formal | named in the question | measured (meta-analysis, 28 articles; secondary) | review 0, 8 |
| Mutlu-Bayraktar 2024 | formal | H2 | measured, descriptive (systematic review, 51 articles; abstract) | review 0, 8 |
| Desiron 2026 | formal | H2 | measured, descriptive (systematic review, 35 studies; abstract) | review 0, 8 |
| Meusel 2024 | formal | H2, H7 | supported with caveat (N = 191, possible ceiling effects; abstract) | review 8 |
| Clariana 2009 | formal | H7 | supported with caveat (N = 80; abstract) | review 8 |
| Harrower 2003 | formal | named in the question | convention (a tool description; abstract) | review 8 |
| Borland 2007 | formal | named in the question | convention (argued with examples; abstract) | review 8 |
| Crameri 2020 | formal | named in the question | convention (argued, read in full; no experiment) | review 8 |
| Nunez 2018 | formal | V2 | supported with caveat (title and listing only) | review 8 |
| Liu 2018 | formal | G16 | measured (a user study; full text read) | review 8 |
| Reda 2021 | formal | G16 | measured (secondary) | review 8, against |
| Petroff 2021 | formal | V2 | convention (title only) | review 8 |
| Birch 2012 | formal | G17, G13 | measured, descriptive (title only) | review 8 |
| Wong 2011 | formal | G17 | convention (journal column; title only, palette content secondary) | review 8 |
| Schloss 2011 | formal | targeted lookup after G15 | measured (preference experiments; secondary) | review 8, against |
| Palmer 2010 | formal | targeted lookup after G27 | measured (abstract) | review 8 |
| Bramao 2011 | formal | targeted lookup after E11 | measured (meta-analysis, 35 experiments, N = 1,535) | review 8 |
| Greco 2008 | formal | G14, G29 | measured (three experiments; secondary) | review 8, against |
| Guo 2014 | formal | named in the question | measured, descriptive (observational, 6.9 million sessions; read in full) | review 7, against |
| Noetel 2021 | formal | E8 | measured (105 randomised trials; abstract) | review 0, 7 |
| Brame 2016 | formal | G21 | convention (narrative review; abstract) | review 0, 7 |
| Tharumalingam 2025 | formal | M2 | measured (meta-analysis, 24 studies, 110 effect sizes; abstract) | review 0, 7 |
| Kuang 2023 | formal | M2 | measured (meta-analyses, 18 studies, 203 effect sizes; abstract) | review 0, 7 |
| Shah 2023 | formal | E9 | supported with caveat (quasi-experiment, two sections; abstract and introduction) | review 7 |
| Shah 2025 | formal | E9, M4 | supported with caveat (about 530 students, two sections; abstract) | review 7 |
| Selvaraj 2021 | formal | E10 | measured, descriptive (literature review; title and a search summary only) | review 0, 7 |
| Lin 2022 | formal | M4 | supported with caveat (n = 33, no control group; abstract) | review 7 |
| Miller 2011 | formal | M1 | supported with caveat (two semesters, one course; abstract) | review 7 |
| Ito 2026 | formal | E12 | supported with caveat (n = 40; abstract on a repository page) | review 7 |
| Liu 2022 | formal | E12 | supported with caveat (n = 99; abstract on a repository page) | review 7 |
| Tabbers 2009 | formal | M9 | supported with caveat (abstract) | review 7 |
| Hatsidimitris 2012 | formal | M9 | supported with caveat (abstract) | review 7 |
| Ljubojevic 2014 | formal | M10 | supported with caveat (abstract) | review 7 |
| Meij 2021 | formal | M1 | supported with caveat (abstract) | review 7 |
| Bos 2025 | formal | M7 | supported with caveat (two sessions of about 20 students, no control; abstract) | review 7 |
| Voorde 2024 | formal | M7 | convention, untested (a taxonomy by open coding; full text read) | review 7 |
| Radmehr 2024 | formal | M7 | convention, untested (one case; abstract) | review 7 |
| Zureick 2017 | formal | M8 | measured, descriptive (a survey, N = 439; abstract) | review 7 |
| Li 2023 | formal | E13 | supported with caveat (n = 290; secondary) | review 7 |
Q9 sources (added 2026-10-29)
A grey score gives the eight subtotals of the method, in its order, then the total out of 20.
Flow for Q9
| Stage | Formal | Grey |
|---|---|---|
| Result blocks screened (strings) | 144 (E 59, F 85) | 65 |
| Result blocks screened (seed lookups) | 59 | 0 |
| Included as new | 18 | 7 |
| Already held, linked not re-reviewed | Kosslyn 2012 | Minto 1987, Bezos 2018, Tufte 2003, Kawasaki 2005, Duarte 2008 |
| Of the 7 grey, at or above 10 of 20 | 1 |
- Excluded without opening: template-vendor and AI slide-tool blogs; duplicate pages; pages with no producer; crowdfunding and business-plan studies with no presentation.
- Seen, not retrieved: see the last section.
Grey sources
| Key | Kind | Found via | Quality | Used in |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DocSend 2022 | grey, news report of company data (tier 2), read in a trade-press article | G32 | 3/3/1.5/1/0.5/1.5/1/0.5 = 12 | review 9b, 9c |
| DocSend 2026 | grey, owner report page (tier 2) | G32 | 3/1/1/0/0.5/0.5/0.5/0.5 = 7 (below 10) | review 9c (example only) |
| Sequoia 2019 | grey, owner guide (tier 2) | G36 | 3.5/1/1/0.5/0.5/1/0.5/0.5 = 8.5 (below 10) | review 9b, 9e (example only) |
| Minto 2026 | grey, author site (tier 2) | direct | 3.5/0.5/0/0.5/0.5/0.5/0.5/0.5 = 6.5 (below 10) | review 9a (example only) |
| Huthwaite 2026 | grey, owner interview (tier 2) | G37 | 3/1.5/0/1/0.5/1/1/0.5 = 8.5 (below 10) | review 9b, 9e (example only) |
| Tufte 2022 | grey, owner page of a critic (tier 2) | G35 | 2/0.5/0/1/0/0.5/0.5/0.5 = 5 (below 10) | review 9c (example only) |
| Millerd 2025 | grey, trainer's blog (tier 3) | G34 | 1.5/0.5/0.5/1/0/0/0/0 = 3.5 (below 10) | review 9a, 9e (example only) |
- Scoring notes:
- DocSend 2022: a count of 320 decks for slide content only, the sample for viewing times not stated and the method not published; the owner sells deck sharing, so objectivity is 1.5.
- Sequoia 2019: the only evidence on the page is one anecdote about a company; the page was published 2019-03-15 and modified 2025-03-13. The date criterion stays at 0.5 (the same value as before, so the total is unchanged).
- Huthwaite 2026: the interviewee originated SPIN and the training company hosts the page (trademark ownership not checked).
- Tufte 2022: reports a claim by two former Amazon leaders, from their book (not read), on a site that sells Tufte's seminars.
- Millerd 2025: no firm named in it wrote a source; it describes consulting practice from the outside.
- No Q9 source reached the score of a government or standards document. Only one of the seven new grey sources clears 10, and it is a count, not a method.
Formal sources
| Key | Kind | Found via | Quality | Used in |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kalvapalle 2024 | formal, review of 252 papers (abstract read) | E14 | measured, descriptive | review 9b |
| Ferrati 2021 | formal, systematic review (secondary: summary of abstract) | E14 | measured, descriptive | review 9b |
| Zebregs 2015 | formal, meta-analysis (abstract read) | E15 | measured | review 9d |
| Kernbach 2015 | formal, systematic review (abstract read) | E17 | measured, descriptive | review 9f |
| Segel 2010 | formal, design-space study (author PDF read; the critique of it is secondary) | E18 | convention (taxonomy) | review 9d |
| Kosara 2013 | formal, essay and research agenda (secondary) | E18 | convention, untested | review 9d |
| Clingingsmith 2018 | formal, randomised field experiment (abstract read) | F3 | measured, details unread | review 9b |
| Bernstein 2017 | formal, randomised field experiment (full text) | F4 | measured | review 9b |
| Kanze 2018 | formal, field study and experiment (abstract read) | F5 | measured | review 9b, 9d |
| Britt 2003 | formal, Experiments 1, 2, 3a and 3b (full text) | F6 | supported with caveat (short arguments) | review 9a |
| Yates 2007 | formal, qualitative genre analysis (secondary) | F7 | supported with caveat | review 9c |
| Clark 2008 | formal, survey of 24 angels (abstract read) | seed | supported with caveat | review 9a, 9b |
| Chen 2009 | formal, lab experiment and field study (abstract read) | seed | supported with caveat | review 9b, 9d |
| Pollack 2012 | formal, observational, 113 funded pitches (abstract read) | seed | supported with caveat | review 9b |
| Brooks 2014 | formal, field study and two experiments (abstract and full text read) | seed | measured | review 9b, 9d |
| Huang 2015 | formal, three studies (abstract read) | seed | supported with caveat | review 9b |
| Cardon 2017 | formal, empirical test of 72 angels (full text) | summary of Chen 2009 string | supported with caveat | against 9f |
| Yang 2021b | formal, 79 VC-project pairs, Chinese VC setting (abstract read) | summary of Chen 2009 string | supported with caveat | against 9f |
Counted new: 18 formal rows, of which 16 are core and 2 (Cardon 2017, Yang 2021b) are readings used only in against (Cardon 2017: full text; Yang 2021b: abstract). Held and linked, not re-reviewed: Kosslyn 2012, Garner 2013, Ginns 2005, Adesope 2012, Baker 2018, Rowley-Jolivet 2005.
Seen, not retrieved or not read
| Item | Why | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| PNAS article full text (Brooks 2014) | HTTP 403; the repository mirror asks for a bot check, which was not passed | the numbers 90 pitches, 36% and 60% were read in the author copy (MIT DSpace) |
| Journal of Finance full text (Bernstein 2017) | metadata request answered HTTP 429; read in full on 2026-10-29 | counts confirmed in the full text: 4,494 investors and 16,981 emails |
| Management Science full text (Clingingsmith 2018) | HTTP 403 | coefficients unread; only the abstract's four-hypothesis claim is used |
| Academy of Management Journal text (Chen 2009, Kanze 2018) and ETP text (Pollack 2012) | paywalled | sample sizes of Chen 2009 unread; Kanze counts (140 VCs, 189 entrepreneurs) secondary |
| AR 25-50, the US Army correspondence regulation | the official PDF link in a reference page returned 404 | BLUF origin rests on secondary pages; nothing quoted from it |
| Y Combinator seed-deck guide | the page returned a title and no body | no YC claim is used |
| DocSend's press release of 2021, and its study of 2015 (the 3 minutes 44 seconds figure) | one request timed out; the 2015 study was seen only as a search summary | the 2:44 and 3:44 figures are not used as findings |
| Challenger Sale figures (17%, 27%, 57% of the buying process) | search summary only, repeated by blogs | not used |
| the books of Rackham, of Bryar and Carr, and of Dixon and Adamson (published in 1988, 2021 and 2011) | not read, no catalogue page opened | named only as origins |
| the narrative meta-analyses of 1997, 2015 and 2016 named in the Q9 protocol | summary or metadata only | not used for numbers |
Q10 sources (added 2026-10-29)
A grey score gives the eight subtotals of the method, in its order, then the total out of 20.
Flow for Q10
| Stage | Formal | Grey |
|---|---|---|
| Result blocks screened (strings) | 227 (E 86, F 141) | 84 |
| ERIC titles screened | 57 | 0 |
| Included as new | 17 | 4 |
| Already held, linked not re-reviewed | see below | TED 2026, PechaKucha 2026, Ignite 2026, LornaJane 2017, Nederbragt 2016 |
| Of the 4 grey, at or above 10 of 20 | 0 |
- Excluded without opening: language-learning pages that use TED talks as listening material; marketing surveys of content formats; template and AI slide-tool blogs.
- Seen, not retrieved: see the last section.
- Held and linked, not re-reviewed: Bakcek 2020, Liao 2020, Warmuth 2021, Shah 2023, Shah 2025, Savoy 2009, Baker 2018, Sundararajan 2020, Mayer 2014c, Kalyuga 2014.
- Also held: Noetel 2022, Zebregs 2015, Bradbury 2016, Wilson 2007, Guo 2014, Peyton Jones 1993, Garner 2013, Kosslyn 2012, Rowley-Jolivet 2005.
Grey sources
| Key | Kind | Found via | Quality | Used in |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACM Local 2026 | grey, society guide for meetup organisers (tier 2), opened | G42 | 3/0.5/1.5/0/0.5/1/0.5/0.5 = 7.5 (below 10) | review 10e (example only) |
| WooCommerce 2026 | grey, company community handbook (tier 2), opened | G42 | 2.5/0.5/1.5/0.5/0.5/0.5/0.5/0.5 = 7 (below 10) | review 10b, 10e (example only) |
| PyCon 2026 | grey, compiled advice page (tier 3), opened | G41 | 1.5/1/2/0/1/0.5/0.5/0 = 6.5 (below 10) | review 10c, 10d, 10e (example only) |
| Hilton 2022 | grey, practitioner blog (tier 3), opened | G42 | 1.5/0.5/1/1/0/0.5/0/0 = 4.5 (below 10) | review 10b, 10e (example only) |
- Scoring notes:
- ACM Local 2026: undated, signed by a staff member of the society; it states that food raises attendance by 40% with no data, so objectivity is 1.5. It says a meetup talk need not be an academic paper presentation.
- WooCommerce 2026: a copyright line and no date or version; it cites no research and says good content matters more than polished delivery. The producer promotes its own community.
- PyCon 2026: the page names no producer; a repository account maintains it, and its compiler says they have no speaking experience. The advice comes from named community speakers, in posts from 2010 to 2011, and cites no data.
- Hilton 2022: dated 2022-09-27; the author's experience, no data.
- No Q10 grey source reaches 10. All four are examples of practice. No formal claim in this review rests on them alone; review 10.5 does, and is graded convention, untested.
Formal sources
| Key | Kind | Found via | Quality | Used in |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| McCarthy 2025 | formal, systematic review of 1,360 articles plus a survey of 45 educators (full text) | E19 | measured, descriptive | review 10a, 10f |
| Dahlstrom 2014 | formal, narrative review (full text read 2026-10-29) | F12 | supported with caveat | review 10c, 10f |
| Zhou 2025 | formal, narrative review of about 140 works (first half of the text read) | E21 | supported with caveat | review 10c |
| Banas 2011 | formal, review (read in full) | E21 | supported with caveat | review 10c |
| Garner 2006 | formal, study of curriculum-specific humour on retention and recall (read in full: randomised, 94 analysed of 117) | F14 | supported with caveat | review 10c |
| Kaplan 1977 | formal, experiment on humorous examples (secondary) | F14 | supported with caveat | review 10c |
| Suzuki 2014 | formal, experiment, 165 participants (secondary) | F14 | supported with caveat | review 10c |
| Sugimoto 2013 | formal, observational, 1,202 talks (full text) | F10 | supported with caveat (observational) | review 10a, 10f |
| Segal 2026 | formal, preprint, observational, 1,239 transcripts (abstract page read) | F9 | supported with caveat | review 10c, 10f |
| Frank 2025 | formal, online experiment, 2,212 analysed (journal page read) | F15 | supported with caveat | review 10c |
| Freiling 2024 | formal, survey experiment (read in full; N = 796) | F15 | supported with caveat | review 10c, 10f |
| Childers 2021 | formal, survey n = 124 and interviews n = 17 (read in full) | F16 | supported with caveat | review 10a |
| Hunsu 2016 | formal, meta-analysis (read in full) | E24 | supported with caveat | review 10c |
| Rey 2012 | formal, review and meta-analysis (read in full) | E25 | supported with caveat | review 10f |
| Cheng 2026b | formal, multilevel meta-analysis (abstract read) | E25 | measured | review 10f |
| Ginns 2013 | formal, meta-analysis (read in full) | E26 | measured | review 10c |
| Rakedzon 2017 | formal, text analysis of 5,000 pairs of abstracts and lay summaries (full text) | F18 | supported with caveat | review 10a |
Seen, not retrieved or not read
| Item | Why | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Official Ma thèse en 180 secondes documents (a file of the Université de Lorraine dated 2026; rules from Lyon dated 2019) | HTTP 404 on both | the University of Queensland rules and judging pages (UQ 2026) answer and were read as the primary source for the rules (180 seconds, one slide, no props) |
| Fischer and Thies on what makes a good science story (JCOM) | the search gave an abstract; the downloaded file was an EPUB that could not be read | not used; the claim that narrative depth did not change story quality is unverified |
| Springer pages of Cheng 2026b, Childers 2021 | an anonymous request returned HTTP 200 with the abstract and its numbers (Ginns 2013 also loaded) | numbers are primary at abstract level |
| Elsevier page of Hunsu 2016 | the page held no abstract text | effect sizes later read in the full text; "small but significant" is the abstract's own wording |
| Gesture counts of TED talks (465 against 272) | a popular source, no method read | not used |
| A language-style study of TED talk views (2021) and the Lancaster press note | summary only | not used |
| Lightning-talk tips by Willison, Datawookie, Hackernoon, CIEP | seen in a summary, not opened | named only as practice that exists |
| A study by Lichtschlag (2012): a canvas against a slide deck, in 15-minute talks | results not in the text retrieved | not used |
| A thesis on science cafes in Dublin | summary only | not used; Childers 2021 used instead |
| Claims on retention at six weeks by Martin (2006), McMorris (1997) and Kaplan and Pascoe, read secondhand | named in summaries | used only through Zhou 2025 and Kaplan 1977 as secondary |
| Two studies of clickers, by Chien (2016) and Grzeskowiak (2015) | named in a summary | not used for numbers |