PHD Discussions Logo

Ask, Learn and Accelerate in your PhD Research

Question Icon Post Your Answer

Question Icon

Are the implications for future research specific and actionable, based directly on the gaps identified?

As a reviewer, I often see scoping reviews subtly veer into making claims about "what works best." I'm trying to reinforce this disciplinary norm in my own writing and when mentoring students. Can you clarify the firm boundary we should maintain regarding conclusions, and how to state findings without overstepping?

 

All Answers (1 Answers In All)

By Jennifer Answered 1 year ago

It’s critical to remember that a scoping review is a map of the landscape, not an evaluation of the buildings. I have seen this overstep damage a manuscript's credibility during peer review. Your conclusions should describe the volume, nature, and characteristics of the evidence e.g., "The field is dominated by small-scale feasibility studies." You must avoid language like "these studies show this intervention is effective." That is a question for a systematic review with quality appraisal. Frame your conclusion around what exists and what is missing, not what works.

 

Your Answer