How To Publish A Review Article In A Journal?

Research your publishing options – Take the time to explore the journals in your field, to choose the best fit for your research. Find a journal that serves the audience you’re trying to reach, and whose aims and scope match your approach. You might also have choices to make about different publishing options, including open access. Discover more about choosing the right journal

Can I publish a review paper in a journal?

Why write a review article? –

To provide a comprehensive foundation on a topic. To explain the current state of knowledge. To identify gaps in existing studies for potential future research. To highlight the main methodologies and research techniques.

There are some journals that only publish review articles, and others that do not accept them. Make sure you check the of the journal you’d like to publish in to find out if it’s the right place for your review article. Below are 8 key items to consider when you begin writing your review article.

• Make sure you have read the aims and scope for the journal you are submitting to and follow them closely.
• Different journals accept different types of articles and not all will accept review articles, so it’s important to check this before you start writing.
• Define the scope of your review article and the research question you’ll be answering, making sure your article contributes something new to the field.

As award-winning author Angus Crake told us, you’ll also need to “define the scope of your review so that it is manageable, not too large or small; it may be necessary to focus on recent advances if the field is well established.” When finding sources to evaluate, Angus Crake says it’s critical that you “use multiple search engines/databases so you don’t miss any important ones.” For finding studies for a systematic review in medical sciences,,

1. Does a literature review need an introduction? Yes, always start with an overview of the topic and give some context, explaining why a review of the topic is necessary.
2. Gather research to inform your introduction and make it broad enough to reach out to a large audience of non-specialists.
3. This will help maximize its wider relevance and impact.

Don’t make your introduction too long. Divide the review into sections of a suitable length to allow key points to be identified more easily. Make sure you present a critical discussion, not just a descriptive summary of the topic. If there is contradictory research in your area of focus, make sure to include an element of debate and present both sides of the argument.

1. You can also use your review paper to resolve conflict between contradictory studies.
2. As part of your conclusion, include making suggestions for future research on the topic.
3. Focus on the goal to communicate what you understood and what unknowns still remains.
4. Always perform a final spell and grammar check of your article before submission.

You may want to ask a critical friend or colleague to give their feedback before you submit. If English is not your first language, think about using a language-polishing service. Find out more about how can help improve your manuscript before you submit.

Differences in.	Research article	Review article
Viewpoint	Presents the viewpoint of the author	Critiques the viewpoint of other authors on a particular topic
Content	New content	Assessing already published content
Length	Depends on the word limit provided by the journal you submit to	Tends to be shorter than a research article, but will still need to adhere to words limit

Complete this checklist before you submit your review article:

Have you checked the journal’s aims and scope? Have you defined the scope of your article? Did you use multiple search engines to find sources to evaluate? Have you written a descriptive title and abstract using keywords? Did you start with an overview of the topic? Have you presented a critical discussion? Have you included future suggestions for research in your conclusion? Have you asked a friend to do a final spell and grammar check?

: What is a review article? | Learn how to write a review article |

Can a review be a journal article?

Journal Article Review in APA Style Journal article reviews refer to the appraisal of potencies and limitations of an article’s opinion and subject matter. The article reviews offer the readers with an explanation, investigation and clarification to evaluate the importance of the article.

A journal article review usually follows the APA style, which is in itself an exceptional mode of writing. Writing a journal article review in APA style requires a thorough reading of an article and then present our personal opinions on its subject matter. In order to write a journal article review in APA style, one must necessarily conform to the detailed guidelines of APA style of writing.

As such, a few tips for writing a journal article review in APA style have been provided in details below.

Which journal accepts review articles?

Scope of Journal – International Journal of Research and Review (IJRR) is a double-blind Indexed peer-reviewed open access journal which publishes original articles, reviews and short communications that are not under consideration for publication elsewhere.

1. The journal publishes papers based on original research that are judged by critical reviews, to make a substantial contribution in the field.
2. It aims at rapid publication of high quality research results while maintaining rigorous review process.
3. The Journal welcomes the submission of manuscripts that meet the general criteria of significance and academic excellence.

Papers are published approximately one month after acceptance.

How do I publish a review article in Scopus?

Identifying the Best Journal/Publication That Is Scopus Indexed –

The primary goal of everyone seeking to have their research work and papers published in Scopus indexed journals is so that they can gain the recognition of prominent domain experts and peers from their fields. However, blindly in any journal or publication is not the best way to go about spreading the word about your research work. One should always first begin by identifying the most relevant and appropriate journal to their current field/subject of interest/study.As detailed above Scopus has numerous journals and publications listed as part of its master list that it has deemed to be authentic, reliable and of great quality. There are certain criteria that one must keep in mind when determining if a journal or publication that they have found on Scopus’ master list is the most relevant to their research and work, such as –

the number of readers/followers that a journal has,

the topics that a journal is known for covering,

the caliber of authors/researchers who have their work published in the journal,

the opportunities that will be available as a result of getting your work published,

their reputation and popularity within your specific field/domain, and

whether the journal is an open-access journal or a close access one.

When it comes to deciding between whether to choose a close access journal or an open-access journal to publish your work, it is important to remember that an open access journal requires authors as well as co-authors to pay a processing fees in the event that the journal chooses to publish their work.

How much does it cost to publish a review article?

How much does it cost to publish in a journal? Article Processing Charge(APC) which means publication fee of articles depends upon the academic publishers who publish the articles. They publish article with two ways. They often charge $100 to over $3,000 for both types of article publishing open and closed.

Is a review considered an article?

Not to be confused with articles that are reviews in the more general sense (such as a book review), for which see Review, A review article is an article that summarizes the current state of understanding on a topic within a certain discipline. A review article is generally considered a secondary source since it may analyze and discuss the method and conclusions in previously published studies.

1. It resembles a survey article or, in news publishing, overview article, which also surveys and summarizes previously published primary and secondary sources, instead of reporting new facts and results.
2. Survey articles are however considered tertiary sources, since they do not provide additional analysis and synthesis of new conclusions.

A review of such sources is often referred to as a tertiary review, Academic publications that specialize in review articles are known as review journals. Review journals have their own requirements for the review articles they accept, so review articles may vary slightly depending on the journal they are being submitted to.

• the main people working in a field
• recent major advances and discoveries
• significant gaps in the research
• current debates
• suggestions of where research might go next

A meta-study summarizes a large number of already published experimental or epidemiological studies and provides statistical analysis of their result. Review articles have increased in impact and relevance alongside the increase in the amount of research that needs to be synthesised.

Is a review article credible?

What’s so great about peer review? Peer reviewed articles are often considered the most reliable and reputable sources in that field of study. Peer reviewed articles have undergone review (hence the ‘peer-review’) by fellow experts in that field, as well as an editorial review process.

How much does it cost to publish a peer reviewed journal article?

Article Publishing Charges (APCs) – Irrespective of the publishing model chosen by the author, our goal is to ensure articles are published as quickly as possible, subject to appropriate quality controls, and widely disseminated. Where an author has chosen to publish open access, which typically involves the payment of an article publishing charge (APC) by the author, their institution or funding body, we make their article freely available immediately upon publication on ScienceDirect in perpetuity with the author’s chosen user license attached to it.

• Journal quality (as measured by journal quality Field Weighted Citation Impact Tier);
• The journal’s editorial and technical processes;
• Competitive considerations;
• Market conditions;
• Other revenue streams associated with the journal.

A small percentage of titles may support more than one APC, for example when a journal supports one or more article types that require different APCs. We do not vary the APC prices for our proprietary journals based on the user license chosen by the author.

Is 7 a good impact factor?

What Is a Good Impact factor of a Journal? Any researcher looking to publish an article gets tangled in the web of journal impact factor and how to select the best journal to target. While it is easy to know the impact factor of a journal, it is altogether a different challenge as to how to interpret this number.

Here is an easy guide to journal impact factor and what it means. What is the impact factor of a journal ? This is the easiest question to answer! The Journal impact factor is a measured frequency-based on citation numbers of article s from a journal in a particular year. First introduced by Eugene Garfield, the founder of the Institute for Scientific Information, the simple formula is Impact factor =A/B for any given year (X), where A is the number of citation of articles published in years (X-1 & X-2) by indexed journal s during Year X; and B is the total number of citable items like article s and reviews published by that journal in the years (X-1 & X-2).

Impact factor s are calculated each year by Thomson Scientific for those journal s that it indexes (it was 12,298 for 2017) and are published in JournalCitation Reports. So, what are the caveats?

Remember, the impact factor is always dated back 3 years; one cannot know the impact factor of the present year as it will come after 2 years. Impact factor analysis is limited to the 12,298 journal s indexed for the JournalCitation Reports covering 27 research disciplines only. Impact factor can be calculated only after completing the minimum of 3 years of publication and therefore it cannot be calculated for a brand new journal The impact factor only denotes citation of journal s and not individual articles That is done by other measures like the H-index.

How do we interpret the value of a journal’s impact factor ? This is where things start getting tricky! In most fields, the impact factor of 10 or greater is considered an excellent score while 3 is flagged as good and the average score is less than 1.

However, the impact factor is best read in terms of subject matter in the form of the 27 research disciplines identified in the JournalCitation Reports. Some science streams have higher frequencies of citation while some subjects like streams in humanities may have a lower frequency of citation, The best means of judging a journal based on the impact factor is noting the comparative score of the journal with others in the same field.

So, if a journal A has a score of (say) 5 while the next journal B has a score of 2, that is different from a journal C having a score of 10 while the next journal D has a score of 9. It is the relative score that matters while choosing a journal for publication.

Do any journals pay reviewers?

Editor’s Note: This post was originally published in 2014 and has been refreshed for Peer Review Week 2017. The peer review system has been the cornerstone of scientific publishing for centuries. Most reputed journals use peer review as they believe it assures some form of quality control in the scientific literature.

Moreover, even the general public may often hold academic papers in high regard because they know that the papers have been through some kind of objective check before getting published, even if they can’t describe the peer review process. Even though the purpose of peer review as a gatekeeper for research is undisputed, peer review is not without its own set of problems such as reviewers’ bias, plagiarism, personal or professional jealousy, etc.

Peer review has many unseen costs directly related to publication of articles, even though there are usually no monetary transactions involved in the process. The main costs have to do with time: time spent by the journal editors in arranging peer review and of course the time devoted by the peer reviewers in reviewing articles. A vital, and often overlooked, aspect of peer review is that in the current system, peer reviewers are normally not paid for their work. They are, instead, rewarded non-financially by means of acknowledgment in journals, positions on editorial boards, free journal access, discounts on author fees, etc.

• Associating with reputed journals that include the names of reviewers as their ‘elite’ contributors is a major incentive for the reviewers.
• Moreover, the opportunity to be a part of intellectually enriching professional debates and acting as a gatekeeper of science is another motivational factor.
• Thus, social obligation, intellectual contribution, and reputation seem to be the motivational aspects of the traditional peer review mechanism.

This is also rewarding for the reviewers in their career progression when their contribution to the academic community is considered. However, an increasing number of reviewers feel that unpaid peer review is rather unfair on the following grounds:

Reviewers are also researchers who take out time from their research work, teaching, etc. to go through scientific papers. They argue that journals should realize that their time has monetary value. Journals earn money from subscriptions, article processing charges, etc. However, they do not pay anything to the peer reviewers. Researchers are sometimes paid for reviewing books or other written work. However, they are usually not paid for reviewing scientific papers. They are dissatisfied with this discrepancy.

With the emergence of companies offering independent, paid peer review and also a few journals offering to pay reviewers for their work, the traditional model is at the brink of a change. Those in favor of paid peer review feel that this would motivate the reviewers to accept more papers for reviews.

• However, others question whether such independent pre-publishing peer reviews would be accepted by journals.
• Moreover, some researchers feel that paid reviews would, in fact, take away the focus from publishing good science to the monetary gains by peer reviewing.
• The overall cost of publishing would also increase since authors or journals might have to pay for peer reviews.

In the traditional model, reviewers are viewed as valued academicians who voluntarily provide their opinion for the advancement of science. Reviewing is seen as their duty toward the academic and scientific community. On the other hand, privatization of peer review provides researchers with the opportunity to get a monetary reward for the hard work they put in. Published on: Sep 11, 2017

Does Elsevier only publish peer-reviewed articles?

Open access journals All articles in open access journals which are published by Elsevier have undergone peer review and upon acceptance are immediately and permanently free for everyone to read and download.

How much does it cost to publish in PLoS ONE journal?

Publication or page charges $0 – There is a publication charge of US$1350 for accepted articles. Also, complete or partial fee waivers can be obtained for authors who do not have funds to cover the fees. Fees may be reduced or waived for manuscripts submitted from Low and Lower Middle Income Countries (details at http://www.plos.org/publications/publication-fees/).

Can a PhD student publish a review paper?

Book review – In addition to original research articles, most academic journals also carry reviews of recent work in their field (such as monographs, edited collections and so on). Writing these book reviews might be one of the simplest ways to get published as a PhD student.

If you get in touch with the reviews editor of an academic journal and introduce yourself / your research specialism, they may ask you to write a short (normally 1,000 words or so) review of a book that they’ve been sent by a publisher. You’ll then be sent a copy of the book in question, some review guidelines and a deadline.

It’s a good idea to read previous reviews in the journal to get a feel for the tone of voice and style. Although book reviews aren’t necessarily subject to the same peer review standards as an article, they can be a great way to understand what’s happening in your field and begin to get your name about as an academic.

1. You’ll (normally) get to keep the book/s too, which is nice.
2. If you’re studying a PhD in Science, Technology, Engineering or Mathematics (STEM), it’s less likely that you’ll be published as a sole author of a paper.
3. Instead, you may be named as a co-author or multi-author of a publication, along with your supervisor or the laboratory team you’re working collaboratively within.

As is the case with AHSS academic journals, anything you submit to a STEM journal will be subject to a scrupulous peer review process in order to ensure its quality. Publications depend on the nature of your research and whether you’re working with a new or existing dataset / methodology.

If you’re devising something new, you can expect to take longer to get published. If you’re working within a larger laboratory, it’s more likely than you’ll be published as a multi-author on a particular research project. Working closely with your supervisor will often lead to a publication as a co-author,

Another publication route for STEM PhD students is via conference proceedings (AHSS students can also be published using this method). Conference proceedings form a record of what happened at an academic event, with details of the presented papers and research.

How many reviewers will review a paper in a good journal?

Understanding peer review The peer review process starts once you have submitted your paper to a journal. After submission, your paper will be sent for assessment by independent experts in your field. The reviewers are asked to judge the validity, significance, and originality of your work. Below we expand on what peer review is, and how it works. Peer review is the independent assessment of your research paper by experts in your field. The purpose of peer review is to evaluate the paper’s quality and suitability for publication. As well as peer review acting as a form of quality control for academic journals, it is a very useful source of feedback for you. The feedback can be used to improve your paper before it is published. So at its best, peer review is a collaborative process, where authors engage in a dialogue with peers in their field, and receive constructive support to advance their work. Use our free guide to discover how you can get the most out of the peer review process.

Peer review is vitally important to uphold the high standards of scholarly communications, and maintain the quality of individual journals. It is also an important support for the researchers who author the papers. Every journal depends on the hard work of reviewers who are the ones at the forefront of the peer review process.

The reviewers are the ones who test and refine each article before publication. Even for very specialist journals, the editor can’t be an expert in the topic of every article submitted. So, the feedback and comments of carefully selected reviewers are an essential guide to inform the editor’s decision on a research paper.

• There are also practical reasons why peer review is beneficial to you, the author.
• The peer review process can alert you to any errors in your work, or gaps in the literature you may have overlooked.
• Researchers consistently tell us that their final published article is better than the version they submitted before peer review.91% of respondents to a said that their last paper was improved through peer review.

A supports this, finding that most researchers, across all subject areas, rated the contribution of peer review towards improving their article as 8 or above out of 10. We support, an initiative launched by a coalition of scholarly communications organizations. That means, if you submit to one of these journals, you will not benefit from helpful article feedback from your peers. It may also lead to others being skeptical about the validity of your published results. You should therefore make sure that you submit your work to a journal you can trust.

By using the checklist provided on the, you can make an informed choice. Every full research article published in a Taylor & Francis journal has been through peer review, as outlined in the journal’s information. This means that the article’s quality, validity, and relevance has been assessed by independent peers within the research field.

We believe in the integrity of peer review with every journal we publish, ascribing to the following statement: All published research articles in this journal have undergone rigorous peer review, based on initial editor screening, anonymous refereeing by independent expert referees, and consequent revision by article authors when required. Meet the author Christopher L. Pallas Professor of Conflict Management and Political Science, Kennesaw State University After your manuscript has gone From boosting your academic career to staying on top of the latest research, there are many benefits to becoming a Across the virtual seas of peer review, the Editorial office keeps the voyage ship-shape, all around the world. At Taylor Expert tips and guidance on getting published and maximizing the impact of your research. Register now for weekly insights direct to your inbox.

• So, check your chosen journal’s peer-review policy before you submit, to make sure you know what to expect and are comfortable with your paper being reviewed in that way.
• Every Taylor & Francis journal publishes a statement describing the type of peer review used by the journal within the section on Taylor & Francis Online.
• Below we go through the most common types of peer review.

This type of peer review is also called ‘single-blind review’. In this model, the reviewers know that you are the author of the article, but you don’t know the identities of the reviewers. Single-anonymous review is most common for science and medicine journals.

Find out more about the pros and cons of,

In this model, which is also known as ‘double-blind review’, the reviewers don’t know that you are the author of the article. And you don’t know who the reviewers are either. Double-anonymous review is particularly common in humanities and some social sciences’ journals.

Discover more about the pros and cons of,

If you are submitting your article for double-anonymous peer review, make sure you know, There is no one agreed definition of open peer review. In fact, identified 122 different definitions of the term. Typically, it will mean that the reviewers know you are the author and also that their identity will be revealed to you at some point during the review or publication process.

Further reading:,

In post-publication peer review models, your paper may still go through one of the other types of peer review first. Alternatively, your paper may be published online almost immediately, after some basic checks. Either way, once it is published, there will then be an opportunity for invited reviewers (or even readers) to add their own comments or reviews.

You can learn about the pros and cons of

The process splits peer review into two parts. The first round of peer review takes place after you’ve designed your study, but before you’ve collected or analyzed any data. This allows you to get feedback on both the question you’re looking to answer, and the experiment you’ve designed to test it.

Find out about,

is part of the Taylor & Francis Group. It operates an innovative peer review process which is fully transparent and takes place after an article has been published. How it works:

Submitted articles are published rapidly, after passing a series of pre-publication checks that assess, originality, readability, author eligibility, and compliance with F1000Research’s policies and ethical guidelines.

Once the article is published, expert reviewers are formally invited to review.

The peer review process is entirely open and transparent. Each peer review report, plus the approval status selected by the reviewer, is published with the reviewer’s name and affiliation alongside the article.

Authors are encouraged to respond openly to the peer review reports and can publish revised versions of their article if they wish. New versions are clearly linked and easily navigable, so that readers and reviewers can quickly find the latest version of an article.

The article remains published regardless of the reviewers’ reports. Articles that pass peer review are indexed in Scopus, PubMed, Google Scholar and other bibliographic databases.

Peer review follows a number of steps, beginning with submitting your article to a journal. When your manuscript arrives at the journal’s editorial office it will receive an initial desk assessment by the journal’s editor or editorial office. They will check that it’s broadly suitable for the journal. They will ask questions such as:

• Is this the right journal for this article?
• Does the paper cover a suitable topic according to the journal’s ?
• Has the author followed the journal’s guidelines in the ? They will check that your paper meets the basic requirements of the journal, such as word count, language clarity, and format.
• Has the author included everything that’s needed for peer review? They will check that there is an abstract, author affiliation details, any figures, and research-funder information.
• Does it make a significant contribution to the existing literature?

If your article doesn’t pass these initial checks the editor might reject the article immediately. This is known as a ‘desk reject’ and it is a decision made at the editor’s discretion, based on their substantial experience and subject expertise. By having this initial screening in place, it can enable a quick decision if your manuscript isn’t suitable for the journal.

This means you can submit your article to another journal quickly. If your article does pass the initial assessment, it will move to the next stage, and into peer review. Michael Reiss, Founding Editor of Sex Education Next, the editor will find and contact other researchers who are experts in your field, and will ask them to review the paper.

A minimum of two independent reviewers is normally required for every research article. The aims and scope of each journal will outline their peer review policy in detail. The reviewers will be asked to read and comment on your article. They may also be invited to advise the editor whether your article is suitable for publication in that journal.

• Your work is original or new.
• The study design and methodology are appropriate and described so that others could replicate what you have done.
• You’ve engaged with all the relevant current scholarship.
• The results are appropriately and clearly presented.
• Your conclusions are reliable, significant, and supported by the research.
• The paper fits the scope of the journal.
• The work is of a high enough standard to be published in the journal.

Important: if you have not already, peer reviewers may request to see your datasets, to support validation of the results in your article. Once the editor has received and considered the reviewer reports, as well as making their own assessment of your work, they will let you know their decision.

• The reviewer reports will be shared with you, along with any additional guidance from the editor.
• If you get a straight acceptance, congratulations, your article is ready to move to publication.
• But, please note, that this isn’t common.
• Very often, you will need to revise your article and resubmit it.
• Or it may be that the editor decides your paper needs to be rejected by that journal.

Please note that the final editorial decision on a paper and the choice of who to invite to review is always the editor’s decision. For further details on this, please see It is very common for the editor and reviewers to have suggestions about how you can improve your paper before it is ready to be published.

• During this next stage of the process you will have time to amend your article based on the reviewers’ comments, resubmitting it with any or all changes made. Make sure you know how to respond to reviewer comments, we cover this in the next section.
• Once you resubmit your manuscript the editor will look through the revisions. They will often send it out for a second round of peer review, asking the reviewers to assess how you’ve responded to their comments.
• After this, you may be asked to make further revisions, or the paper might be rejected if the editor thinks that the changes you’ve made are not adequate. However, if your revisions have now brought the paper up to the standard required by that journal, it then moves to the next stage.

If you do not intend to make the revisions suggested by the journal and resubmit your paper for consideration, please make sure you formally withdraw your paper from consideration by the journal before you submit elsewhere. Some researchers don’t revise and resubmit their manuscript when they receive changes in the initial peer review.

• This is a lost opportunity.
• Revisions and feedback are an essential and normal part of the publishing process.
• It’s unlikely a journal will accept your manuscript first time; just as most great novels don’t get published without being edited.
• And that’s it, you’ve made it through peer review.
• The next step is,

Editorial teams work very hard to progress papers through peer review as quickly as possible. But it is important to be aware that this part of the process can take time.

1. The first stage is for the editor to find suitably qualified expert reviewers who are available. Given the competing demands of research life, nobody can agree to every review request they receive. It’s therefore not uncommon for a paper to go through several cycles of requests before the editor finds reviewers who are both willing and able to accept.
2. Then, the reviewers who do accept the request, have to find time alongside their own research, teaching, and writing, to give your paper thorough consideration.

Please do keep this in mind if you don’t receive a decision on your paper as quickly as you would like. If you’ve submitted your paper via an online system, you can use it to track the progress of your paper through peer review. Otherwise, if you need an update on the status of your paper, please get in touch with the editor.

Top tip: Many journals publish key dates alongside new articles, including when the paper was submitted, accepted, and published online. While you’re at the stage of choosing a journal to submit to, take a look at these dates for a range of recent articles published in the journals you’re considering.

While each article will have a slightly different timeline, this may help you to get an idea of how long publication may take. Peer review is a process that involves various players – the author, the reviewer and the editor to name a few. And depending on which of these hats you have on, the process can look quite different.

1. To help you uncover the 360⁰ peer review view, Nobody enjoys having their paper rejected by a journal, but it is a fact of academic life.
2. It happens to almost all researchers at some point in their career.
3. So, it is important not to let the experience knock you back.
4. Instead, try to use it as a valuable learning opportunity.

If a journal rejects your manuscript, it may be for one of many reasons. Make sure that you understand why your paper has been rejected so that you can learn from the experience. This is especially important if you are intending to submit the same article to a different journal.

1. The author has submitted their paper to the wrong journal: it doesn’t fit the or fails to engage with issues addressed by the journal.
2. The manuscript is not a true journal article, for instance it is too journalistic or clearly a thesis chapter.
3. The manuscript is too long or too short.
4. There is poor regard of the journal’s conventions, or for academic writing in general.
5. Poor style, grammar, punctuation or English throughout the manuscript. Get assistance.
6. The manuscript does not make any new contribution to the subject.
7. The research has not been properly contextualized.
8. There is a poor theoretical framework used. There are,
9. The manuscript is poorly presented.
10. The manuscript is libelous or unethical.

When you made your original submission, you will probably have had a shortlist of journals you were considering. Return to that list but, before you move to your second choice, you may wish to assess whether any feedback you’ve received during peer review has changed your opinion.

Once you have selected which journal to submit to next, make sure that you read through its information for authors and reformat your article to fit its requirements. Again, it is important to use the feedback from the peer review process to your advantage as you rewrite and reformat the manuscript.

A growing number of publishers offer a to authors when their paper is rejected. This process is designed for papers which aren’t suitable for the journal they were originally submitted to. If your article falls into this category then one or more alternative journals from the same publisher will be suggested.

You will have the option either to submit to one of those suggested journals for review or to withdraw your article. If you choose to transfer your article this will usually save you time. You won’t need to enter all of the details into a new submission system. Once you’ve made any changes to your paper, bearing in mind previous editor or reviewer comments, the article will be submitted to the new journal on your behalf.

We have some more information about When you’re not in the middle of submitting or revising your own article, you should consider becoming a reviewer yourself. There are many demands on a researcher’s time, so it is a legitimate question to ask why some of that precious time should be spent reviewing someone else’s work.

• Keep up with the latest thinking As a reviewer you get an early view of the exciting new research being done in your field. Not only that, peer review gives you a role in helping to evaluate and improve this new work.
• Improve your own writing Carefully reviewing articles written by other researchers can give you an insight into how you can make your own work better. Unlike when you are reading articles as part of your research, the process of reviewing encourages you to think critically about what makes an article good (or not so good). This could be related to writing style, presentation, or the clarity of explanations.
• Boost your career While a lot of reviewing is anonymous, there are schemes to recognize the important contribution of reviewers. You can also include reviewing work on your resume. Your work as a reviewer will be of interest to appointment or promotion committees who are looking for evidence of service to the profession.

Become part of a journal’s community Many journals act as the center of a network of researchers who are in conversation about key themes and developments in the field. Becoming a reviewer is a great way to get involved with that group. This can give you the opportunity to build new connections for future collaborations. Being a regular reviewer may also be the first step to becoming a member of the journal’s editorial board.

Of course, being a reviewer is not just about the benefits it can bring you. The found that these are the top 3 reasons why researchers choose to review:

1. Being an active member of the academic community Peer review is the bedrock of academic publishing. The work of reviewers is essential in helping every piece of research to become as good as it can be. By being a reviewer, you will play a vital part in advancing the research area that you care about.
2. Reciprocating the benefit Researchers regularly talk about the benefits to their own work from being reviewed by others. Gratitude to the reviewers who have improved your work is a great motivation to make one’s own contribution of service to the community.
3. Enjoying being able to help improve papers Reviewing is often anonymous, with only the editor knowing the important contribution you’ve made. However, many reviewers attest that it is work that makes them feel good, knowing that they have been able to support a fellow researcher.

Mike J. Smith, Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Maps Our popular covers everything you need to know to get started, including:

• How to become a peer reviewer
• Writing review reports: step-by-step
• Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers
• Reviewer recognition

Read the, : Understanding peer review

Can we publish review paper in conference?

But once a conference paper has been presented, it doesn’t have to be the end of that piece of writing. Conference paper publication is rare, so it’s unlikely your conference paper will be published as it is. But it can still form the foundation on which a journal article can be built.

Is it possible to publish a literature review?

What to consider if you want to publish a literature review paper When you’ve been reading a lot on a particular topic – for example, reviewing the literature for your research project or for your PhD – at some point it looks like you have enough material and reflections to publish this piece of work as a separate paper.

• Recognize this? If you ever tried it, you might know that publishing a literature review paper in an academic journal is a tricky task.
• The literature review publications come in so many forms, and there is no single cheat-sheet or established format like for empirical papers that you could follow to ensure success in publication.

Through my own journey of trial-and-error on this path, as well as through reviewing for journals and for PhD students in my course, I came up with an idea that will help you to increase the chances of publishing a literature review: think of a literature review as simply another empirical research project.

1. Think of it as an empirical study, in which your data comes not from your usual fieldwork but from the articles that you review.
2. Many literature reviews can be thought of as a qualitative empirical study, in which the papers included in the review substitute interviews or field observations that you would usually collect and code.

Some literature reviews, e.g., meta-analyses, are more like a quantitative empirical paper, in which various numbers you extract from the papers in your dataset substitute your survey data. Seeing literature review in this way has three important implications for how we think about our literature review, and how we can design it to increase its chances of being interesting to others – that is, of being published.

• We learn early in our academic career that any empirical paper should have a clear research problem and a clear research question.
• We frequently hear from journal editors and reviewers that just having a gap in the literature, or the fact that something has not been researched before, are not good enough to justify doing yet another empirical study.

They say: you need to have a problem that your study can address, and you need to have a question that we currently don’t have an answer to. Only then your empirical study can add value to existing research. When we think of a literature review as of an empirical study, just with the different type of data at hand, we realize that the very same rationale applies.

From this perspective the arguments that I often see in literature reviews – that there is no literature review in this particular area or that the existing literature reviews are quite dated – are not sufficient in the journal’s eyes to justify the publication of a literature review on a topic. If you aim to publish your literature review, start by thinking – what is the problem I would like to address? What would be my research question about this problem, that other readers would find interesting? When we think of any empirical study, we know that if we want to have reliable findings that will be accepted by our peers as trustworthy, we need to follow a transparent and well-thought data collection protocol.

We also need to carefully choose and correctly apply relevant data analysis method. This goes without saying, right? The same applies to the literature review! If we want our readers to trust our conclusions from the literature review, we need to make sure that the data we collect speaks to our research question, is of good quality, representative of the field, etc.

1. The growing attention in business and management field to the systematic approach to literature reviews (Denyer & Tranfield, 2009; Rojon et al., 2021) reflects the rising expectations of the quality of the data used in literature review papers.
2. Indeed, this approach offers exactly that: a clear data collection protocol, transparently communicated, so that someone else could replicate your study.

For example, do the very same thing in 10 years and see how thinking on the topic has changed. In the literature on doing literature reviews you will read that systematic literature review is only one of the types of literature reviews. Yet all recommendations on doing different types of the literature reviews share the idea that the data that you base your conclusions on has to be collected in a rigorous and transparent way (e.g., Callahan, 2014).

1. In this post you can find more references on how to ensure that your literature review “data collection” protocol meets the quality expectations.
2. So now you have all the papers you have carefully selected, how do you go about analysing them, so that peer academics would recognize your conclusions as reliable and robust? This is the trickiest part, and we have limited methodological advice published on this.

In this post I’ve mentioned some papers that discuss specific methods of literature analysis. For example, I found that a sophisticated coding rubric leveraged our literature analysis to a different level (Sergeeva & Andreeva, 2016), but must acknowledge that developing this rubric was one of the most challenging tasks of this review paper.

1. In O’Higgins et al.
2. Forthcoming) we used a combination of qualitative content analysis with Pearson’s chi-squared (χ²) goodness of fit test in order to validate some of our conclusions.
3. The trick is – as with any empirical study – your choice of the analytical method needs to fit with your research question.

In sum, the message is: choose your method for analysis of the selected literature carefully, apply it rigorously, and explain it transparently. When we think of our usual empirical work, be it qualitative or quantitative, we are well-aware that just the description of our data wouldn’t do.

1. We know that we need to leverage what our data shows to explain how it informs the broader theory, how it compares to previous studies, what is new that we see from this data? Again, the same logic applies to the literature reviews.
2. In practice though, we often find it difficult to apply this advice to our literature review papers, because the description of the field in itself seems to be novel, especially if nobody did such a review before.

In my experience, this argument does not persuade editors and reviewers of the journals, and often rightfully so. For example, think of a typical quantitative empirical paper: a descriptive statistics table must be provided, but no one would claim a contribution based on it, right? Cropanzano (2009:1306-1307) offers a good exercise that explains why reviewers often don’t buy the description of the field as a novel contribution.

He suggests: imagine somebody who read all the primary articles in your dataset, would they still learn anything from your literature review? And if the answer is “no”, then it’s likely that your review paper doesn’t have yet the level of contribution that is needed to turn it into a publication. I think this exercise can also help to stimulate your thinking of what a theoretical contribution of your literature review could be.

For example, think – what it is that I see in this literature that others are not likely to see? In this blogpost you can find some papers that offer insights on how to leverage your literature review to have a theoretical contribution. Callahan, J.L.

2014). Writing literature reviews: A reprise and update. Human Resource Development Review, 13(3), 271–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484314536705 Cropanzano, R. (2009). Writing nonempirical articles for Journal of Management: General thoughts and suggestions. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1304–1311.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309344118 Denyer, D., Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review. In Buchanan, D., Bryman, A. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational research methods (pp.671–689). London, UK: Sage. O’Higgins, C., Andreeva, T., Aramburu, N.

Forthcoming). International management challenges of professional service firms: a synthesis of the literature. Review of International Business and Strategy. Rojon, C., Okupe, A., McDowall, A. (2021). Utilization and development of systematic reviews in management research: What do we know and where do we go from here? International Journal of Management Reviews, 1– 33.

https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12245 Sergeeva, A., Andreeva, T. (2016). Knowledge sharing: bringing the context back in, Journal of Management Inquiry, 25, 240-261. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492615618271

Resources on doing a literature review Do you really want to publish your literature review? Advice for PhD students How to keep up-to-date with the literature, but avoid information overload? Using Publish or Perish to do a literature review How to conduct a longitudinal literature review? New: Publish or Perish now also exports abstracts

I cover all the expenses of operating my website privately. If you enjoyed this post and want to support me in maintaining my website, consider buying a copy of one of my books (see below) or supporting the Publish or Perish software, academia behind the scenes research focus literature review academic publishing journal submission resources publications Reddit Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Email Copyright © 2023 Tatiana Andreeva, Tatiana Andreeva is Associate Professor in Management and Organizational Behavior and Research Director at the School of Business at the Maynooth University, Ireland. Her research addresses the challenges of managing knowledge in organizations, with a particular focus on how and why employees share (or hide) their knowledge with coworkers, and what managers can do to facilitate (or prevent) these behaviours in different contexts. She is also interested in how the shift to remote work and digitalisation of the organisational processes influence these issues. Tatiana teaches a range of organisational behaviour, knowledge management and research methods topics, including a PhD course on “Research problems, literature reviews and theory building in business and management research”. Tatiana Andreeva’s profile and contact details >>

How do I publish a review paper in SCI journal?

Submission Process – Manuscripts for Sci should be submitted online at susy.mdpi.com, The submitting author, who is generally the corresponding author, is responsible for the manuscript during the submission and peer-review process. The submitting author must ensure that all eligible co-authors have been included in the author list (read the criteria to qualify for authorship ) and that they have all read and approved the submitted version of the manuscript.

Can I publish review paper in Scopus?

Confirmation Of Your Paper Being Published –

Now that the review process and transfer of copyrights to the publisher have been completed successfully, all that is left is for the publishers to actually,As soon as they do this, you are likely to receive a notification from the publishers stating that your paper was published along with other details including –

in which issue it was published,

if there were any changes made to it at the last minute, etc.

Many journals even offer a review period within which authors can choose to make edits to their papers as well as formatting changes in case they need to be made.

If you wish to find out more such tips on how to publish your papers in the best Scopus indexed journals then taking part in an, To to take part in,, today! If you want to get list of upcoming international conference in your mobile, : Guide for how to publish paper in scopus 2023