What makes a review worth publishing
Review articles are among the most cited papers in most fields, which is why journals are selective about them.
Which kind of review?
Be clear about the type you're writing and name it in the title or abstract. Readers and reviewers judge each by different standards.
| Type | Aim | Search |
|---|---|---|
| Narrative | Interpret and synthesize a topic | Broad; described but not exhaustive |
| Systematic | Answer a focused question without bias | Exhaustive, reproducible, protocol-driven |
| Scoping | Map what research exists | Systematic and wide |
| Critical or conceptual | Advance a theory or framework | Selective, argued |
State your method, even in a narrative review
A short paragraph saying which databases you searched, the years, the main terms and how you chose what to include makes a narrative review far more credible. It doesn't turn it into a systematic review, and you shouldn't call it one.
Synthesize, then evaluate
For each theme, say what the weight of evidence shows, how good that evidence is, and where studies disagree and why. Differences in method, sample or measurement usually explain conflicts better than chance does.
A table summarizing the key studies saves the reader pages of description and frees your text for interpretation.
End with an agenda
The most useful section of a review is the one that says what should be studied next and how. Make the open questions specific enough that someone could design a study from them.
Before you invest months
Many journals accept reviews by invitation only, or ask for a proposal first. Check the policy and consider sending a short pre-submission enquiry with your scope and outline.