Writing and Publishing an SLR

Use your completed review evidence to produce a traceable, coherent manuscript. This resource combines report-writing guidance, publication preparation and dissemination planning.

1. Prepare the evidence before writing

Start with the final included-study set, extraction matrix, synthesis notes, quality-appraisal records and reconciled PRISMA counts. Keep the approved protocol and search log available while drafting.

1. Freeze the evidence set. Confirm the study IDs and record any protocol or eligibility changes with their dates and reasons.
2. Map each research question. Group extracted findings by RQ, method, context or theme before drafting prose.
3. Trace claims to evidence. Keep a study ID, page or table reference beside each important finding while drafting.
4. Qualify conclusions. Reflect differences in study design, sample, measures and appraisal; do not make a stronger claim than the included evidence supports.
5. Record unresolved issues. Note missing reports, limitations, uncertain findings and decisions that need author discussion.

2. Write a transparent report

Describe what was actually done so readers can assess the review and reproduce the search and selection process. Report the strategy, eligibility rules, screening, extraction and synthesis methods; present study characteristics and findings; then interpret conclusions alongside evidence limitations.

3. Reporting and transparency

Use PRISMA 2020 where it fits the review design. Report the selection flow, study characteristics, synthesis approach, quality or confidence assessment when applicable, and limitations. PRISMA is a reporting guideline; it does not prescribe the review question or replace the protocol.

• Report the final search strategy and dates in the manuscript or supplement.
• Explain screening, full-text exclusions and any changes to the protocol.
• Align tables, figures and counts with the source records and portfolio.
• Verify references, DOI details, quotations and page references against original papers.
• Disclose funding, conflicts, author contributions, data availability and AI use according to journal policy.

4. Match the manuscript to a journal

Shortlist journals whose aims, audience and article type fit the review. Check current author instructions, indexing claims, recent related reviews, word limits, publication model, fees, ethics statements and submission requirements yourself. A journal-matching tool can suggest candidates; it cannot confirm suitability or guarantee acceptance.

5. Publish and disseminate responsibly

Plan how findings can reach the people who may use them. Alongside journal submission, consider a concise plain-language summary, seminar, institutional repository or a briefing for relevant practitioners and policymakers, where suitable.

• Identify the intended readers and the decision or practice the review may inform.
• Explain implications in proportion to the evidence and state where evidence remains limited.
• Check copyright, publisher terms, institutional policy and funder requirements before sharing accepted manuscripts, datasets or supplementary files.
• Consider open-access options only after checking rights, fees and available institutional arrangements.

6. Final publication-readiness check

1. Confirm manuscript and journal scope alignment.
2. Follow the current author guidelines and article structure.
3. Verify references, DOI details, tables, figures and supplementary files.
4. Check consistency across RQs, Methods, Results, Discussion and Conclusions.
5. Complete the relevant reporting checklist and declarations.
6. Prepare the title, abstract, keywords and a concise cover letter explaining fit and contribution.
7. Complete a final language, formatting and submission-system review.

7. Local templates and selected reading

Download the editable templates from this website, then use the reading links below to explore the selected materials from Session 4c.