ABSTRACT
This chapter discusses the distinctions between different review methods, summarizes a body of scientific research that compares these different review methods, and describes various approaches to track the progress or quality of particular review efforts. Exhaustive manual review involves having a human reviewer examine every document in a collection and code each document as relevant or nonrelevant, and perhaps apply additional labels such as "privileged" or not, "confidential" or not, "hot" or not, and sometimes, specific issue tags. Scientific evidence suggests that certain technology-assisted review methods offer not only reduced effort and cost but also improved accuracy, when compared with manual review. All too often, quality control and validation methods are limited to the review phase, and are disregarded with respect to the documents excluded by earlier culling efforts. A "rule base" is a set of rules—akin to a checklist, decision tree, or flow chart—that determines how to decide whether a document is relevant or not.
