Submissions

Articles

1. Systematic Reviews

Description:
Systematic reviews aim to answer a clearly defined research question by using explicit, reproducible methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant studies. These reviews synthesize the available evidence in a transparent and replicable manner.

Guidelines:

• Protocol and Registration: Authors should indicate if a protocol was registered (e.g., with PROSPERO) and include details of the registration (Optional).
• Search Strategy: A comprehensive search strategy must be described, including databases used, search terms, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the time frame.
• Data Extraction and Synthesis: Provide a detailed description of the methods used for data extraction, quality assessment, and synthesis (narrative or quantitative).
• PRISMA Flowchart: A flowchart detailing the selection process is strongly recommended.
• Structured Abstract: Include sections for background, methods, results, and conclusions.

2. Meta-Analyses

Description:
Meta-analyses quantitatively combine the results of independent studies to provide an overall estimate of the effect or association. They are often conducted as part of a systematic review.

Guidelines:

• Data Pooling: Clearly describe the statistical methods used for combining results, including models (fixed or random effects) and effect size metrics.
• Heterogeneity: Address and quantify study heterogeneity using appropriate statistical tests (e.g., I² statistic) and sensitivity analyses.
• Visual Representation: Forest plots or similar visualizations should be provided to display the pooled results.
• Reporting Standards: Adhere to PRISMA and, where applicable, the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines.
• Abstract: Follow the structured format with emphasis on the statistical synthesis and key findings.

3. Narrative Reviews

Description:
Narrative reviews provide a descriptive, integrative overview of the literature on a particular topic without necessarily following a systematic methodology. They are ideal for exploring broad conceptual issues or theoretical developments.

Guidelines:

• Scope and Rationale: Clearly define the topic, scope, and rationale for the review.
• Organization: Use clear subheadings and thematic sections to guide the reader through the literature.
• Critical Analysis: Ensure that the review not only summarizes but also critically assesses and integrates findings from diverse sources.
• Flexibility: While less structured than systematic reviews, narrative reviews should still maintain clarity, comprehensiveness, and critical insight.
• Abstract: Provide a structured abstract outlining the background, main themes, and conclusions.

4. Conceptual/Theoretical Syntheses

Description:
These reviews focus on integrating and critiquing existing theoretical frameworks or models to propose new or refined conceptual understandings. They are particularly useful for advancing theory in higher-order thinking and metacognition.

Guidelines:

• Theoretical Frameworks: Clearly identify and describe the theoretical models under review.
• Integration and Critique: Offer a critical comparison of theories, discussing strengths, weaknesses, and areas of convergence or divergence.
• Novel Perspectives: Highlight any new conceptual insights or models proposed as a result of the synthesis.
• Structure: Organize the manuscript to systematically develop your argument, with a clear introduction, body, and conclusion.
• Abstract: Include a structured abstract summarizing the key theoretical insights and implications.

5. Scoping Reviews

Description:
Scoping reviews aim to map the existing literature on a broad topic to identify key concepts, theories, sources of evidence, and gaps in the research. They are especially useful when a topic is complex or has not been reviewed comprehensively before.

Guidelines:

• Objectives: Clearly state the objectives and questions that the review intends to address.
• Methodology: Describe the search strategy and selection process, though the emphasis is on breadth rather than critical appraisal.
• Mapping the Evidence: Use tables, charts, or diagrams to display the range and nature of the literature.
• PRISMA-ScR: Adhere to the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews where applicable.
• Abstract: Provide a structured abstract focusing on the mapping of the evidence and identification of research gaps.

6. Bibliometric Reviews

Description:
Bibliometric reviews use quantitative analysis and visualization tools to assess publication trends, author networks, and the evolution of research themes within a specific field.

Guidelines:

• Data Sources: Clearly identify the databases and sources from which bibliometric data were extracted.
• Analytical Tools: Specify the software and methods used for analysis (e.g., VOSviewer, CiteSpace).
• Visualization: Include visual representations (e.g., network maps, trend graphs) to support your findings.
• Interpretation: Discuss the implications of publication trends and research networks for the field.
• Abstract: A structured abstract should summarize the key bibliometric findings and their significance.

7. Qualitative Meta-Syntheses

Description:
Qualitative meta-syntheses integrate findings from qualitative studies to develop new interpretations or theories regarding a particular phenomenon. This approach goes beyond mere summary to generate new conceptual insights.

Guidelines:

• Study Selection: Provide a detailed account of the criteria for including qualitative studies.
• Synthesis Methods: Explain the methods used to extract and synthesize themes (e.g., thematic analysis, meta-ethnography).
• Integration of Findings: Focus on the emergence of new conceptual insights rather than simply summarizing existing data.
• Quality Appraisal: While not as strict as in systematic reviews, include a discussion of the quality and relevance of the included studies.
• Abstract: Include a structured abstract that outlines the synthesis process and the new insights generated.

8. Umbrella Reviews

Description:
Umbrella reviews compile evidence from multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses to provide a comprehensive summary of findings across a broad topic. They offer a high-level overview of the current state of research.

Guidelines:

• Scope: Clearly define the scope and rationale for aggregating multiple reviews.
• Methodology: Describe how systematic reviews were identified, selected, and evaluated.
• Synthesis: Provide a synthesis of the findings from the individual reviews, noting consistencies, discrepancies, and overall trends.
• Critical Evaluation: Discuss the quality and reliability of the included reviews and the implications for future research.
• Abstract: A structured abstract should summarize the overall findings, methodological approach, and key insights from the aggregated reviews.

General Submission Guidelines for All Article Types

• Manuscript Format: Manuscripts should be formatted according to our style guidelines, including clear headings, subheadings, and a consistent citation format.
• Length: While there is flexibility in length, review articles should be comprehensive enough to cover the topic in detail (typically between 6,000 to 10,000 words, unless specified otherwise).
• Figures and Tables: Visual aids (e.g., flowcharts, forest plots, network maps) should be of high quality and include informative legends.
• Abstract: Each manuscript must include a structured abstract (usually 250–300 words) that covers the background, methods, results, and conclusions.
• Ethical Considerations: Authors should disclose any potential conflicts of interest and adhere to ethical standards in research reporting.