Reviews
Transparent evidence synthesis and critical scholarship within the JMNS scope.
Accepted formats
Systematic reviews & meta-analyses
Protocol-driven synthesis with reproducible search, selection, appraisal and analysis.
Scoping reviews
Structured mapping of the extent, characteristics and gaps of an evidence base.
Critical, narrative & mini reviews
Focused synthesis with a defined objective, transparent literature approach and critical interpretation.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
Follow PRISMA and the relevant current extension. Report eligibility criteria, all information sources, the complete reproducible search strategy, the date each source was last searched, study selection, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment and synthesis methods.
Protocols should be prospectively registered in PROSPERO or another appropriate public registry when eligible. If the review was not registered, state this transparently. Meta-analyses should justify effect measures, statistical models, heterogeneity handling and planned sensitivity or subgroup analyses.
Assess certainty of the body of evidence when appropriate to the review question, using GRADE or another justified framework. Share extracted data, analytic code and reusable meta-analytic material whenever ethically, legally and technically feasible.
Scoping reviews
Follow PRISMA-ScR. State the review questions, eligibility criteria, information sources, search strategy, last search date, selection process and charting/synthesis approach. A public protocol is encouraged when it improves transparency and avoids avoidable duplication.
Critical, narrative and mini reviews
Define the objective and scope, explain how literature was identified and selected, distinguish evidence from expert interpretation and address important conflicting evidence. Narrative format does not remove the need for methodological transparency. A review should synthesize and critically analyse the literature rather than list studies sequentially.
Abstract, structure and reproducibility
Systematic reviews, meta-analyses and scoping reviews should use a structured abstract appropriate to the reporting guideline. Critical, narrative and mini reviews may use an unstructured abstract when appropriate.
Use a structure appropriate to the review type: title page, abstract, introduction, methods or literature approach, evidence synthesis, discussion, conclusions, declarations and references. General ORCID, funding, competing-interest, CRediT, AI-use and language-support requirements are stated in the main Author Guidelines.