The phrase "all papers were coded" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts where you are discussing the process of categorizing or encoding information from papers, such as in research or data analysis.
Example: "After the data collection phase, all papers were coded to ensure consistency in the analysis."
Alternatives: "all documents were encoded" or "all papers were classified".
Furthermore, all papers were coded according to UEM type, evaluation output types, comparison criterion (the criteria used, if any, to assess the design feedback), the involved users or participants, and research design.
In the analysis process, all papers were coded on four aspects directly reflecting the research question: the purpose of the gathered users' design feedback (RQ1), the qualitative characteristics of the evaluation output (RQ2), assessments of validity and thoroughness (RQ3), and assessments of downstream impact (RQ4).
Once all papers were coded and data presented as descriptive themes, we needed to 'go beyond' the original author interpretations of their data to provide analytical themes.
There was a significant overlap in findings in many studies and theoretical saturation was reached before all papers were coded; thus it is unlikely that any significant themes have been missed.
For confirming the statistically significant change in test scores in the experimental group using tutor-less PBL BIOCcoursese), five independent markers regraded all the problem-solving tests from this course in a blind manner after all the test papers were coded and shuffled into a single pile.
As new papers were coded descriptively, themes were translated from one study to the next and new codes were added to the 'code bank' as appropriate.
We developed a two-level analysis: Identifying goal concepts: The unstructured papers were coded to reflect the underlying goal terminology, using the paper's own vocabulary.
Topics specified as barriers or facilitators to help-seeking in the papers were coded respectively under thirteen different barrier and seven facilitator themes.
Finally, the findings of previous studies reviewed in this paper were coded in terms of the integration of peer feedback into learners' text revisions and the factors affecting such interactional feedback.
Thirty-two papers were identified and each paper was coded in terms of sample type, basic research question, research design and methodological details, results and implications for future research.
Considering conventional SC risks, which still apply in a sustainable SC, the sample paper is coded according to the four risk factors formulated by Tang (2006), as displayed in Table 14.
