PHD Discussions Logo

Ask, Learn and Accelerate in your PhD Research

Question Icon Post Your Answer

Question Icon

2 years ago in Manuscript By Aarna

. Is the rationale for a scoping review (as opposed to a systematic review) clearly stated (e.g., to map a complex field, identify key concepts/gaps)?

Is the justification for conducting a scoping review rather than a systematic review clearly explained (for example, to map a complex field or identify key concepts and gaps)?

All Answers (2 Answers In All)

By Kumar Answered 1 year ago

Yes. The manuscript must explicitly state the rationale, clearly differentiating it from a systematic review. It should justify the need to map a broad or complex field, identify key concepts and evidence types, or clarify definitions and gaps, rather than answer a narrow efficacy question

By Manasa Answered 1 year ago

In my experience on review boards, the most common flaw in a scoping review protocol is a weak rationale. I would recommend you explicitly state that your goal is to map a complex, heterogeneous, or emerging field, not to answer a narrow, predefined question suited for a systematic review. Use language like "to identify key concepts, theories, sources, and evidence gaps." I have seen this clarity immediately elevate a proposal’s credibility, showing you understand the fundamental purpose of scoping versus synthesizing evidence.

 

Your Answer