There are a wide variety of reviews that are used in health-related research. Each review has a unique purpose and process. Three of the most widely used reviews are systematic reviews, scoping reviews and literature reviews.
A literature review compiles published materials that provide examination of recent or current literature. They are not as comprehensive as a systematic or scoping review, and don’t have specific criteria for exclusion or inclusion.
The purposes of a literature review are to capture available research or evidence on a given topic at a given time, and may be used as a very useful starting point for almost any research. They are sometimes called "traditional" or "narrative" reviews.
There is no set structure or best practice for literature reviews. The general process undertaken is:
Scoping reviews generally have a broader subject or topic than systematic reviews, and are more exploratory. They are designed to help researchers get a big picture about the available evidence on a given subject, and to identify and map the available evidence. They are sometimes referred to as "mapping" reviews.
Scoping reviews are not necessarily quicker than a systematic review. The PRISMA checklist for scoping reviews includes 20 essential reporting items, and 2 optional items.
Systematic reviews seek to collate evidence that fit within specific criteria. They aim to minimise bias by using explicit, systematic methods documented in advance, and represent a high level of evidence. They are ideal for an analysis of a treatment or intervention, or a comparison of treatments or interventions.
SRs also follow a very specific process; the most comprehensive SRs follow PRISMA guidelines. A PRISMA-compliant SR includes 27 checklist items.
SRs can take months or years, and are not appropriate for every topic.
Open access is based on the philosophy that knowledge created from public funding should be accessible for all. Open access publishing has many benefits including being accessible to researchers in developing countries; and enabling a wider audience resulting in stronger research impact.
Open access does not mean that it will not cost the researcher money to publish in a journal; rather that the article will be free to access by all readers. There are three types of journals:
It is important to verify the status of the journal offering publication for a fee, to ensure it is not a predatory publisher.
One approach to selecting a journal to publish in is to make a shortlist of possible options, and then complete a checklist such as Think.Submit.Check. Checklists ask you to consider the audience, scope, reputation, discoverability etc of each journal, which simplifies the process of comparison. You also need to ensure you are meeting the requirements of your organisation and any funding/grant bodies that may have supported the research being published.
Once you have chosen a journal make sure you read the submission requirements and include all paperwork required. Be sure to get all final edits and permission from all authors before submitting.
Although journals with higher impact factor are more frequently cited in medical literature, it can be difficult to get published in a “gold standard” journal early in a research career. Consider a range of journals and be prepared to submit to another journal if your first choice does not accept the paper.
Predatory publishers are those which intentionally undertake unethical practices, including asking for fees to publish, falsely claiming works will be/are peer reviewed, and claiming unsubstantiated research metrics.
Please note, being asked to pay to publish as Open Access is different to being asked to pay to publish. Many high quality non-predatory journals charge for Open Access publishing.
Provides access to online resources for Queensland Health staff
The library captures information about staff publications based on database searches of staff affiliations. This requires CHQ authors to ensure they record their affiliations correcting when submitting articles to journals.
The CHQ affiliation is to reference the staff member’s clinical service, department or organisational unit. Unofficial or informal research group or team names are not to be used.
Examples include:
For more details, see the CHQ Publications and authorship procedure in the Governance eCatalogue.
