Guideline for Review Article

Manuscripts should not exceed 7000 words for the main text, including the abstract, tables and references. However, at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief, a more flexible approach to the word limit may be approved for reviews of exceptional quality and importance.

 

Literature reviews requirement:

Title

The title should contain a descriptor that best describes the type of review, such as: ‘Systematic review’, ‘Narrative review’, ‘Meta-analysis’, 'Integrative review', ‘Scoping review’

 

Abstract

An unstructured abstract is for narrative review. But for systematic review, meta-analysis, integrative review, scoping review, the structured abstract should include the following headings:

  • Background
  • Objective
  • Design
  • Data Sources (include search dates)
  • Review Methods
  • Results
  • Conclusion

The abstract is not more than 300 words and should not contain abbreviations or detailed statistics, with maximum 5 keywords.

 

Main content

This is main content with no authors' detail. All illustrations, figures, and tables are placed within the text at the appropriate points, rather than at the end of the manuscript.

 

Narrative review

  • Narrative review articles describe and discuss the state of the science of a specific topic or theme from a theoretical and contextual point of view.
  • Do not list the types of databases and methodological approaches used to conduct the review nor the evaluation criteria for inclusion of retrieved articles during databases search
  • Use the following headings:
    • INTRODUCTION
    • DEVELOPMENT (using necessary sub-headings to divide and discuss appropriately the topic)
    • DISCUSSION
    • REFERENCES

 

Systematic review, meta-analysis, integrative review, and scoping review

The main text of your paper should include the following headings and sub-headings.

INTRODUCTION

Include background and rationale, conceptual or theoretical context, international relevance of topic, and aim(s). Include research topic/objectives/questions: for example, ‘The aim of the (type) review was to…’.

 

METHODS

  • Design. The review design should be the most appropriate for the review question. Identify the type of review and describe its design and the methods used in detail (e.g. systematic review, integrative review, scoping review, meta analysis)
  • Search methods. Include: databases searched, keywords, search methods (range of years). Use table if necessary to show readers the number of articles you search from each database.
  • Inclusion and exclusion criteria. Including criteria for language, full text, topic, definition, etc.
  • Screening. Including the reviewers who did the first screening for selection, and screening for content analysis.
  • Data extraction. Using table which contains authors names, year, country name, objective, conceptual framework, sample, design, instrument, results, conclusion, and gap. 
  • Quality appraisal. Include a description of approaches used, outcome of appraisal process and audit of discarded studies. Make clear the criteria that were used for discarding studies. If quality appraisal was not undertaken provide a convincing and robust explanation, and in the limitations section outline the potential impact on the credibility of the review findings. The quality appraisal is optional for scoping review and integrative review.
  • Data analysis. Explain how you analyze the contents.

 

RESULTS

  • Search outcome. Describe the outcome of your search. Using flow diagram or using e.g. PRISMA for systematic review).
  • Quality assessment results. Describe the results of your assessment.
  • Analytical findings. Describe the results of your findings, usually using themes, categories, patterns, etc.

 

DISCUSSION

  • Draw out the applicability, theoretical and practical implications of the review findings.
  • End with limitations and strength and generalisability/ transferability of the evidence.

 

CONCLUSION

  • This should not be a summary/repetition of the findings. Clarify the contribution of the review to existing knowledge, highlight gaps in knowledge and understanding, outline future research, report implications/ recommendations for policy/ practice/ research/ education/ management as appropriate, consistent with the limitations.
  • If appropriate, consider whether one or more theoretical frameworks could guide future research about the topic of the review.

 

REFERENCES

Use APA (American Psychological Association) 6th Edition with doi number format for citation and references.