Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Editorial
. 2016 Sep 4:1:12.
doi: 10.1186/s41073-016-0019-2. eCollection 2016.

Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews

Jennifer A Byrne  1   2
Affiliations
Editorial

Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews

Jennifer A Byrne. Res Integr Peer Rev. .

Abstract

As the size of the published scientific literature has increased exponentially over the past 30 years, review articles play an increasingly important role in helping researchers to make sense of original research results. Literature reviews can be broadly classified as either "systematic" or "narrative". Narrative reviews may be broader in scope than systematic reviews, but have been criticised for lacking synthesis and rigour. The submission of more scientific manuscripts requires more researchers acting as peer reviewers, which requires adding greater numbers of new reviewers to the reviewing population over time. However, whereas there are many easily accessible guides for reviewers of primary research manuscripts, there are few similar resources to assist reviewers of narrative reviews. Here, I summarise why literature reviews are valued by their diverse readership and how peer reviewers with different levels of content expertise can improve the reliability and accessibility of narrative review articles. I then provide a number of recommendations for peer reviewers of narrative literature reviews, to improve the integrity of the scientific literature, while also ensuring that narrative review articles meet the needs of both expert and non-expert readers.

Keywords: Narrative literature review; Peer review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Bornmann L, Mutz R. Growth rates of modern science: a bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. J Assoc Inform Sci Tech. 2015;66(11):2215–22.
    1. Pautasso M. Publication growth in biological sub-fields: patterns, predictability and sustainability. Sustainability. 2012;4(12):3234–47. doi: 10.3390/su4123234. - DOI
    1. Siebert S, Machesky LM, Insall RH. Overflow in science and its implications for trust. Elife. 2015;4: doi: 10.7554/eLife.10825. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ketcham CM, Crawford JM. The impact of review articles. Lab Invest. 2007;87(12):1174–85. doi: 10.1038/labinvest.3700688. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dijkers MP. Task Force on Systematic Reviews and Guidelines. The value of traditional reviews in the era of systematic reviewing. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;88(5):423–30. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e31819c59c6. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types