How to publish a systematic review

What counts as a systematic review

PLOS One, using the Cochrane definition, describes a systematic review as a review of a clearly formulated question that uses explicit, systematic methods to identify, select and critically appraise research, and to collect and analyse data from the included studies. A meta-analysis may or may not be part of it. PLOS One says such reviews differ substantially from narrative reviews (PLOS One). If your work is a scoping or narrative review, check which guideline and article type your journal uses.

Step 1: Register a protocol before you extract data

PROSPERO, run by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York, registers planned systematic reviews with a health-related outcome. Its guidance says (PROSPERO guidance):

• registration is free, and registrants are responsible for keeping the record accurate and up to date;
• a full protocol should be ready, and you must register before data extraction starts;
• submissions must be in English, although attached protocols and search strategies may be in any language;
• it does not accept scoping reviews, literature reviews that only use a systematic search, or reviews without an outcome of clear relevance to human health;
• Cochrane protocols are uploaded automatically, so they should not be registered separately.

For reporting the protocol itself, the PRISMA 2020 paper points to the separate PRISMA-P 2015 statement (PRISMA 2020).

Step 2: Follow established methods

PRISMA is a reporting guideline, not a guide to doing the review. For methods, Cochrane describes its Handbook (version 6.5, updated August 2024) as the official guide to preparing Cochrane intervention reviews, covering planning, searching and selecting studies, data collection, risk of bias, statistical analysis, GRADE and interpreting results (Cochrane).

Step 3: Report with PRISMA 2020

The PRISMA 2020 statement has a 27-item checklist in seven sections, an expanded checklist, an abstract checklist and template flow diagrams for original and updated reviews. It replaces PRISMA 2009, "which should no longer be used". It was designed mainly for reviews of health interventions, but many items apply to other review questions (PRISMA 2020). Changes since 2009 that editors and reviewers often check:

• full search strategies for all databases, registers and websites searched (item 7);
• how many reviewers screened each record and report, whether they worked independently, and any automation tools used (item 8);
• studies that might appear to meet the criteria but were excluded, cited with reasons (item 16b);
• methods and results for assessing certainty in the body of evidence (items 15 and 22);
• registration and protocol details, including amendments made after registration (item 24);
• competing interests (item 26), and whether data, code and other materials are publicly available (item 27).

If the journal limits words, PRISMA 2020 suggests referring to a public protocol or placing detail in supplementary files, ideally in an open repository.

Step 4: Use the right extension

The PRISMA website lists official extensions, including PRISMA-Scoping Reviews, PRISMA-Network Meta-Analyses, PRISMA-Diagnostic Test Accuracy, PRISMA-Individual Participant Data, PRISMA-Harms, PRISMA-Search and PRISMA-Children and Adolescents. It also lists updates under development, including a partial update of PRISMA 2020 on the use of AI tools in the review process (PRISMA extensions). As of 15 October 2026, PRISMA 2020 remains the main guideline on the PRISMA website (PRISMA statement).

Step 5: Meet the journal's requirements

Two examples from publisher guidance:

Sources: PLOS One and Springer. For the letter itself, see how to write a cover letter.

Step 6: Agree authorship early

Review teams are often large. The ICMJE recommends that every author meets all four criteria: substantial contributions, drafting or critical revision, final approval and accountability (ICMJE). Others can be acknowledged. If the review is part of a PhD, follow your university's rules and your supervisor's advice.

Common reporting gaps

• A protocol registered after data extraction began, or changes from the protocol not explained.
• Only one search strategy shown when several databases, registers or websites were searched.
• A flow diagram whose numbers do not add up, or that uses the 2009 template.
• No risk of bias or certainty assessment, or conclusions stronger than the evidence.
• Narrative or scoping methods presented as a systematic review.

How we can help

You run the review and write the paper. Through medical manuscript editing, our team of qualified researchers and subject-specialist editors with publishing experience edits the language, structure and journal formatting. A reporting-guideline checklist review (CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE, CARE and similar) is included in every medical edit, and we flag missing items for you to add; we do not run searches, screen studies or change your data. For journal choice, see journal submission support and PubMed-indexed journals. Submission is guided, or done by us only with the corresponding author's explicit authorisation. We work with Word, LaTeX, PDF and other files, offer Arabic support and an NDA on request, and work in Gulf and Jordan business hours. We give a custom quote based on word count, field and deadline after a free assessment, and we agree turnaround per quote. You can pay by Stripe, PayPal or bank transfer in USD, GBP, SAR, AED, JOD and other currencies; itemised invoices are available on request. Clients also get free, ongoing revision and resubmission support until the paper is published. This is support, not a promise of publication. Acceptance is always decided by the journal's editors and peer reviewers.

Independence: On Time Publication is not affiliated with Elsevier/Scopus, Clarivate/Web of Science, COPE, the ICMJE, the US National Library of Medicine (NLM), PRISMA, PROSPERO, Cochrane, PLOS, Springer Nature or any journal or publisher named on this page. We have no office in the GCC or Jordan. We link to public guidance so you can check it yourself.

Sources and further reading

We link to official sources so you can check the rules yourself. Always follow your target journal's and institution's current instructions.

• PRISMA statement website (PRISMA 2020 checklist, flow diagram and papers)
• The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (BMJ 2021;372:n71, open access)
• PRISMA extensions, including those under development (PRISMA statement website)
• PROSPERO: international prospective register of systematic reviews (University of York, CRD)
• PROSPERO guidance: registering a review of human studies (PDF)
• Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (version 6.5)
• PLOS One submission guidelines (systematic reviews, human subjects research, ethics statements)
• Springer journal policies: ethics approval, consent, declarations and standards of reporting
• ICMJE: Defining the role of authors and contributors