Whittle, Alasdair. Review of Memory, Myth and Long-Term Landscape Inhabitation, edited by Adrian M. Chadwick and Catriona D. Gibson. Archaeological Journal 172, no. 2 (July 3, 2015): 493–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/00665983.2015.1040685.

Mediocre viewpoint of the overall research, in part because claims are not logically proven.

I'll note that the reviewer is approaching things from a Western perspective and not that of an indigenous person whose culture relies heavily upon or(primary) orality.

The majority of Scheil's critiques of desired material seems to have been filled in broadly by:

Henley, Georgia, and Joshua Byron Smith, eds. A Companion to Geoffrey of Monmouth. Brill’s Companions to European History 22. Brill, 2020. http://archive.org/details/oapen-20.500.12657-42537.

Obviously this isn't an inconsequential amount of scholarship (575+ pp) to have included in Reeve's volume.

While it's nice to identify what is not in the reviewed volume, it's probably better to frame it that way rather than to seemingly blame the authors/editors for not having included such a massive amount of work. This sort of poor framing is too often seen in the academic literature. Reporting on results and work and putting it out is much more valuable in the short and long term than worrying so much about what is not there. Authors should certainly self-identify open questions for their readers and create avenues to follow them up, but they don't need to be all things to all people.

How to Write a Thesis (Umberto Eco) - my reading notes<br /> by Raul Pacheco-Vega

perfunctory positive review; no great insight

reply to u/Subject_Industry1633 at https://www.reddit.com/r/Zettelkasten/comments/zwgeas/is_the_zk_method_worth_it_and_how_it_helped_you/ (and further down)

ZK is an excellent tool for literature reviews! It is a relative neologism (with a slightly shifted meaning in English over the past decade with respect to its prior historical use in German) for a specific form of note taking or commonplacing that has generally existed in academia for centuries. Excellent descriptions of it can be found littered around, though not under a specific easily searchable key word or phrase, though perhaps phrases like "historical method" or "wissenschaftlichen arbeitens" may come closest.

Some of the more interesting examples of it being spelled out in academe include:

• Thomas, Keith. “Diary: Working Methods.” London Review of Books, June 10, 2010. https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v32/n11/keith-thomas/diary.
• Webb, Sidney. Methods of Social Study. London; New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1932. http://archive.org/details/b31357891.
• Eco, Umberto. How to Write a Thesis. Translated by Caterina Mongiat Farina and Geoff Farina. 1977. Reprint, Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 2015. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/how-write-thesis.
• Sertillanges, Antonin Gilbert, and Mary Ryan. The Intellectual Life: Its Spirit, Conditions, Methods. First English Edition, Fifth printing. 1921. Reprint, Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1960. http://archive.org/details/a.d.sertillangestheintellectuallife. (Particularly ch 7 if I recall correctly)

For academic use, anecdotally I've seen very strong recent use of the general methods most compellingly demonstrated in Obsidian (they've also got a Discord server with an academic-focused channel) though many have profitably used DevonThink and Tinderbox (which has a strong, well-established community of academics around it) as much more established products with dovetails into a variety of other academic tools. Obviously there are several dozens of newer tools for doing this since about 2018, though for a lifetime's work, one might worry about their longevity as products.