Evidence Synthesis
Systematic reviews use explicit, reproducible methods to identify, appraise, and synthesize all relevant studies on a question.
Systematic reviews use explicit, reproducible methods to identify, appraise, and synthesize all relevant studies on a question.
When to select this type
Choose Systematic Review when following a registered or protocol-defined systematic search and selection process.
Typical audience
Evidence users, guideline developers, clinicians, and researchers.
Recommended use cases
Purpose
Minimize bias through predefined protocols, comprehensive searches, and structured reporting.
Scope
Formal evidence synthesis following systematic methodology.
Typical structure
Required sections
Recommended sections
Figures
PRISMA flow diagram required; 0–4 additional figures.
Tables
Study characteristics, risk of bias, and summary tables (3–8 typical).
References
Included studies plus methodological references (often 30–200).
Supplementary material
Full search strings, excluded studies list, extraction data, analysis code.
Required metadata
Required declarations
Funding requirements
Declare all funding and role of funders in review design.
Conflict of interest
Full disclosure required; recusal may apply for intervention-related conflicts.
Ethics requirements
Ethics approval not required for published literature reviews.
Consent requirements
Not applicable for published literature synthesis.
Data availability
Provide search strategies, extraction tables, and analysis scripts when possible.
AI disclosure
Disclose AI-assisted screening or data extraction with validation methods.
Copyright
Authors retain copyright.
Licensing
Open license recommended to support evidence reuse.
Export formats supported
Ensure systematic reviews are reported with enough detail to evaluate methodology and reproduce searches.
Standardize reporting of scoping reviews that chart concepts, sources, and evidence types.
Typical journal expectations
PRISMA checklist compliance, reproducible search strategy, flow diagram.
Typical peer review process
Rigorous methodological peer review with emphasis on search reproducibility.
Journal compatibility notes
Aligns with evidence-based medicine and public health journals.
Submission readiness checklist
Select Systematic Review when your manuscript matches the scope, structure, and reporting expectations described on this page. If your work fits a different scholarly format, review similar publication types before submitting.
Contact the editorial team before payment if you need to change publication type. After editorial screening begins, type changes require editorial approval and may restart parts of the review process.
Reporting guidelines listed as recommended should be followed when applicable to your study design. Editorial reviewers assess completeness against the expectations for your selected publication type.
Platform standards for ethical research publication.
Transparent, ethical, and accountable AI use across research and publishing.
Transparency, independence, and responsible disclosure across research and publishing.