To publish a review article, pick the review type that suits your question, check that nobody has reviewed it recently, and describe your method. The type can be narrative, scoping, systematic, meta-analysis or bibliometric. Also check that the journal accepts unsolicited reviews. Then write the paper with a stated aim, a described method, a body arranged by theme and a research agenda. A review that only sums up papers will not get past most editors.
Many PhD scholars are choosing a review as their first paper, because the reading is already done for the thesis. But a thesis chapter and a review paper do different jobs. The most common problem in a first review is a thesis chapter which was never rewritten. Last reviewed September 2026.
Which type of review article should you write?
Decide the type first. The type fixes your time frame and which journals will even look at you. Our guide to types of research articles defines each kind. The table puts down what work each type needs from you.
| Review type | What it needs | What journals expect | Reporting standard |
|---|---|---|---|
| Narrative | Deep knowledge of the field and a clear argument about it | A stated aim, a described search and a point of view. Many times journals invite these from experts | No PRISMA. SANRA can be used as a self-check |
| Scoping | A broad question, a protocol, a documented search and charting of studies | A map of the evidence and the gaps in it. Journals don’t expect a verdict on what works | PRISMA-ScR |
| Systematic | A focused question, a registered protocol, two independent screeners and a risk-of-bias assessment | Methods others can repeat, a flow diagram, and conclusions that stay within study quality | PRISMA 2020 |
| Meta-analysis | A systematic review, and also enough similar studies with comparable effect sizes | Correct pooling, with heterogeneity and sensitivity analyses | PRISMA 2020 |
| Bibliometric | An export from Scopus or Web of Science, and one mapping tool | Your interpretation of the maps. Only showing the maps is not enough | No single agreed standard. Report the data and settings in full |
For most scholars in the second or third year, I’d suggest a scoping review. A well-built narrative review also works, if you now know the field better than most. A full systematic review is excellent if a colleague can screen the studies independently. For systematic, the PRISMA steps are in our systematic review guide, so I am not repeating them.
Scoping reviews came from the framework of Arksey and O’Malley (International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2005). A scoping review asks “what research exists on this, and where are the holes?”. It is not trying to settle “does this work?”. After two years of reading, many times that is just the question you can answer.
A word on bibliometric reviews
These reviews have become very common in Indian management and engineering departments. You export records from Scopus or Web of Science and map citation or keyword networks with VOSviewer (from CWTS, Leiden University) or Biblioshiny. Biblioshiny is the point-and-click interface of bibliometrix, a free R package (Aria and Cuccurullo, Journal of Informetrics, 2017). If you send ten network maps with one paragraph describing their colours, the editor learns nothing. Papers that get published explain why these clusters formed, which strand is fading and what the field ignores.
How do you check whether your topic has already been reviewed?
Keep one afternoon for this check. Better to know now than after months of work that somebody already reviewed your topic.
- Search Scopus and Web of Science with your topic terms. Filter the document type to Review and look at the last five years.
- Search PROSPERO for registered health reviews, and OSF Registries for protocols in any field. If a protocol is registered, someone is working on it now.
- Read the two or three closest reviews properly. Note their search dates, scope and conclusions.
An earlier review only changes your plan. Suppose the last review searched up to 2021 and lot of papers have come out after that. Then an update can be defended. Or maybe it covered only trials and you want observational evidence. Or it was global, and the Indian evidence behaves differently. Each of these is a new question. Writing the same review again is not an option. Mostly the reviewers know that review well, and one of them may even be its author.
Can you turn your thesis literature review into a review paper?
Yes you can, though trimming alone won’t work and most of it needs fresh writing. Your chapter was written for your guide, the DC and two examiners, and it argues towards your own gap. The paper is for an editor and strangers in your field. Five things have to change.
- Argument. Give the paper its own aim. Nobody reading the journal will go and open your thesis, so the aim has to stand alone.
- Framework. In the chapter, sections went as per your objectives. In the paper, arrange them the way the field thinks, by a framework, mechanisms, or the questions the literature has tried to answer.
- Contribution. Readers need something no single study gives them. A classification or a model can do it. So can a way to reconcile conflicting findings, or a gap map.
- Recency. Run the searches again. A chapter from your first year will miss the researches of the last two years, and reviewers do notice.
- The “so what”. Close the paper with your research agenda, and where the topic touches practice, put a few lines on implications for practice.
How the chapter itself is built is in our guide to writing a literature review. Summary versus synthesis at paragraph level is shown in literature review examples and format. A paper applies this synthesis rule even more strictly.
What is the outline of a review paper?
Most reviews in the sciences and social sciences follow this shape. Still, check two recent reviews in your target journal and match their headings.
Title
Topic and then review type, for example “…: a scoping review”.
Abstract
The aim, how you found the literature, what you found, and the main gaps.
Introduction
Why this review is needed now, what the earlier reviews covered, and your aim in one sentence.
Methods
Databases, dates, search terms and inclusion criteria. Short for a narrative review, but it must be there.
Body
Sections by theme, framework or question. Never author by author.
Synthesis table
The key studies, or the evidence for each theme, on one page.
Research agenda
Specific questions from the gaps, each with the design that can answer it.
Conclusion
What the evidence shows and how strong that evidence is. No new material here.
Scholars mostly skip the methods section in a narrative review, and reviewers ask for it first. Four or five sentences on where, when and how you searched is enough.
An illustrative outline
This scoping review in environmental engineering is made up to show the outline, so nothing in it describe real findings.
Title: Agricultural-residue adsorbents for removing fluoride from groundwater: a scoping review.
- Introduction. Why fluoride in drinking water is a concern in parts of India, and what the earlier reviews covered. Then the aim, to map which residues were tested, in what conditions, and what is missing before field use.
- Methods. Scopus and Web of Science, from 2010 till the search date. Full search string kept in a supplementary file, then the inclusion criteria. Reported as per PRISMA-ScR.
- Adsorbents by source material. Rice husk, coconut shell, bagasse and so on.
- Test conditions. Synthetic solutions compared with real groundwater, and batch studies compared with column studies.
- Regeneration, cost and disposal. Studies tend to skip this theme. That is why it gets a section.
- Synthesis table. One row per residue with studies found, water type, test scale and regeneration reported.
- Research agenda. Field trials with real groundwater, and costing which includes disposal of spent adsorbent.
- Conclusion.
Sections 3 to 5 would never come up in a chapter built around one scholar’s objectives. They follow what a water engineer reading the journal wants to know.
What do editors look for, and why do review papers get desk-rejected?
The first reason is not about quality at all.
Springer Nature’s guidance for authors also warns about this. So see what the journal website says on review articles. If nothing is there, send the editor a pre-submission enquiry before writing. This is a short email with a working title, the aim, why the review is needed now and how you will search. For the tone, our journal cover letter guide will help.
Apart from this, reviews get declined for the same reasons as other papers (see why papers get desk-rejected). Reviews also have reasons of their own. A recent review already exists. Or the paper sums up and never concludes. Or there is no method, so the selection looks cherry-picked. Sometimes the references stop three years back.
Reporting standards reviewers will check
For systematic reviews and meta-analyses, reviewers look at PRISMA 2020 and its 27-item checklist. Scoping reviews are checked against PRISMA-ScR (Tricco and colleagues, 2018), which has 20 essential and 2 optional items. Narrative reviews have no reporting guideline like that, but they have SANRA (Baethge, Goldbeck-Wood and Mertens, Research Integrity and Peer Review, 2019), and it gives editors a six-item scale. The six items are importance of the review, aims, description of the literature search, referencing, scientific reasoning, and presentation of relevant endpoint data. Each item is scored 0, 1 or 2. Better you score your own draft before the editor does.
- The journal takes unsolicited reviews, or the editor already replied to your pre-submission enquiry.
- No recent review exists on the same question, or if one exists, your paper says what extra it adds.
- Your review has a methods section, even though it is a narrative review.
- In most paragraphs, several studies are cited and a point is made about them.
- You have included studies from the last one or two years.
- Your research agenda gives specific questions, and not only a line like “more research is needed”.
- You scored the draft against SANRA, PRISMA-ScR or PRISMA 2020 and fixed the weak items.
To pick the journal, follow how to choose a journal. For a review, add one more check. See how many reviews the journal published in the last one year.
How long does a review article take to write?
Even after the reading, scholars get surprised how many months a review eats up. These are rough figures from experience, no study behind them.
- A narrative review from a finished thesis chapter takes two to four months to a draft you can submit.
- A scoping review takes four to eight months. Most of it goes in searching, screening and charting.
- A systematic review with meta-analysis many times takes a year or more.
Peer review comes on top, and for realistic ranges see how long journal publication takes. If your university wants a published paper before thesis submission, start the review in your second year itself.
One last thing. In the viva the examiner can ask about any study in your review. So every paper in your reference list you should have read yourself, and every conclusion you must be ready to defend in your own words.
Want a specialist to help with this in your own work? Systematic Review Guidance: a free first consultation, then a written scope and fixed quote.
Sources
- Baethge C, Goldbeck-Wood S, Mertens S. SANRA: a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles. Research Integrity and Peer Review 2019;4:5
- PRISMA-ScR: Tricco et al., Annals of Internal Medicine 2018
- Page MJ et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement. BMJ 2021;372:n71
- Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. IJSRM 2005;8(1):19–32
- Springer Nature: references and article types (unsolicited reviews, pre-submission enquiries)
- Alcohol Research: Current Reviews: information for authors
- VOSviewer (CWTS, Leiden University)
- bibliometrix and Biblioshiny
FAQ
Questions scholars ask
Can a PhD scholar write a review article without being invited?
Yes, at journals that accept unsolicited reviews, and many do. First read the author guidelines. If they say nothing, email the editor a short proposal and start writing only after that.
Does a review article count toward the PhD publication requirement?
That is decided by your university, not by UGC. As per some ordinances any peer-reviewed paper is fine, but in other universities only original research is accepted. Ask the research cell in writing. Also see types of research articles.
Is a narrative review easier to publish than a systematic review?
A narrative review is easier to write. For an early-career author, though, it is many times harder to publish, as many journals prefer narrative reviews from invited experts. In a scoping or systematic review anyone can check the method, so editors trust it more easily.
Do I need a methods section in a narrative review?
Include one. A few sentences on the databases, dates, search terms and selection criteria let reviewers judge whether your selection is fair. SANRA also scores the search description as one of its six items.
Can I publish a review from my thesis chapter and keep the chapter in my thesis?
In most cases you can, provided you disclose it. Cite the published review in the thesis, tell your supervisor and follow your university’s rules on prior publication. The submission steps we have covered separately in how to publish a research paper.
