Choosing a journal for an evidence-synthesis paper

Why the choice matters

A systematic review or meta-analysis can take a year of work, and an unwise choice of journal can waste months at the end. Desk rejection, in which the editor declines without sending the paper for peer review, is common for evidence-synthesis submissions. The usual reasons are that the journal does not publish this article type, that the topic is outside its scope, that the review duplicates a recent one, that the methods do not meet the journal's standards, or that required elements such as protocol registration or a PRISMA checklist are missing. Each is avoidable by looking at the journal before writing the cover letter.

The choice also shapes the work. Word limits decide how much detail goes in the main text and how much in supplements. Reference styles, figure rules and the structure of the abstract vary. If the target journal is known early, the manuscript can be built to its template and not reformatted at the end.

Scope and readership

Begin with the audience. Who should read the findings: clinicians, policy makers, researchers in a specialty, educators, managers? Journals differ in who they reach. A specialty journal reaches practitioners in a field, a general journal reaches a broader audience but is more selective, and a methods journal reaches analysts. Then look at the journal itself.

• Read recent issues. Does the journal publish systematic reviews and meta-analyses? How many, on what kinds of topic and with what methods?
• Read the aims and scope. Some journals exclude reviews outright, and others publish only reviews that meet specific standards, such as registered protocols.
• Look at the references in your paper. Journals that appear often in the reference list are probable candidates.
• Check for recent reviews on the same topic. If the journal has just published a similar review, the editor may see yours as redundant.

Article types and requirements

Journals use different labels, such as systematic review, meta-analysis, review article, scoping review, rapid review and evidence synthesis. Check that your design is accepted. Then read the instructions for authors with attention to the elements that bear on reviews.

• Registration. Many journals require or strongly encourage a registered protocol, for example in PROSPERO or the Open Science Framework, and some require it for acceptance.
• Reporting guideline. PRISMA 2020 or an extension, with a completed checklist and a flow diagram.
• Word and display limits. Limits on words, references, tables and figures, and whether supplements are permitted.
• Data and code. Whether sharing of extracted data and analysis code is expected.
• Search currency. Some journals require that the search be recent, often within twelve months of submission, though the rule varies.
• Funding and competing interests. Disclosure rules and the role of sponsors.
• AI-use statements. Many journals now require disclosure of the use of AI tools in writing, screening or analysis.
• Preprints. Whether posting a preprint is allowed before submission.

Checking that the journal is legitimate

Predatory or deceptive journals charge fees without providing the editorial and peer-review services they claim. They pose a risk to the reputation of the authors and to the integrity of the literature, and they exist in every field. No single test identifies them, but several checks together are effective.

• Indexing. Verify indexing directly in the database, such as MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science or the Directory of Open Access Journals, and not from a claim on the journal's website. Check the title on the indexer's own list.
• Publisher and membership. Look for membership of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association or comparable bodies, and confirm on those bodies' websites.
• Editorial board. Check that named editors exist, are affiliated as stated and know about their role.
• Peer review and timelines. Transparent description of the review process, and realistic timelines. Promises of acceptance in days are a warning sign.
• Fees. Fees stated clearly before submission, with no surprises after acceptance.
• Contact and behavior. Be wary of unsolicited invitations with flattering language, a lack of a physical address, and a website with errors.
• Ask colleagues and librarians. The Think. Check. Submit. checklist offers a structured set of questions.

Open access, fees and funding

Journals publish under subscription, fully open access, or hybrid models. Fully open access journals usually charge an article processing charge, which varies greatly and which some funders and institutions cover, either directly or through agreements between libraries and publishers. Subscription journals may have no charge to publish, but readers need access. Many funders require that publicly funded research be openly available, and some specify the licence, so check the policy of the funder and the institution before choosing. Self-archiving of the accepted manuscript in a repository is allowed by many journals, with or without an embargo. Fees and policies change, and each journal's current terms should be checked on its own site, not from a list or from memory.

Speed, visibility and metrics

Journal-level metrics such as the impact factor describe how often a journal's articles are cited on average, and they say little about a given paper. They are also affected by the field, by the share of reviews, which are cited more often than primary studies, and by a few highly cited papers. Use them as one input among several. Other considerations are often more useful.

• Time to first decision and to publication. Many journals publish median times; treat these as rough guides.
• Visibility. Indexing in the databases your readers use, and discoverability through search engines and citation databases.
• Peer-review model. Single-blind, double-blind or open review, and whether reviewer reports are published.
• Policies on preprints and sharing.
• Likelihood of acceptance. A journal that has published several reviews of similar scale is a better bet than one that rarely does.

Be wary of using metrics alone to rank journals, and of choosing a journal for its metric when the readership does not match your intended audience.

Building and using a shortlist

A practical process takes about a day. List five to eight candidate journals using the criteria above. For each, record the scope, article type, word limit, registration and reporting requirements, indexing, review model, fees and typical timelines. Rank them by fit and likelihood, and by how well they serve the audience. Prepare the manuscript to the structure of the first-choice journal. Keep the work modular, so that reformatting for the next journal is quick: reference management software with style switching, a short and a long version of the abstract, and a clear separation of the main text from supplements.

Contact the editor with a presubmission inquiry if the journal accepts them and the fit is uncertain. A brief message with the title, a short abstract and the registration number can save weeks.

The cover letter

The cover letter should be short and specific. State the article type, explain in a few sentences why the review is relevant to the journal's readers, declare the registration and the reporting guideline, mention that the work has not been published or submitted elsewhere, disclose any related submissions and conflicts, and name any suggested reviewers, with the reasons, or ask to exclude any with a conflict. Do not repeat the abstract, and do not exaggerate the importance of the findings.

Common mistakes

• Submitting to a journal that does not publish reviews, or does not publish this design.
• Ignoring a required protocol registration until after the review is done.
• Not reading the word and display limits.
• Relying on a journal's own claims about indexing and impact factor.
• Responding to an unsolicited invitation without checking the journal.
• Submitting to several journals at once, which is not allowed.
• Choosing by metric alone, with no regard for the readership.
• Skipping a check for a recent, similar review in the journal.

Special cases

Protocol papers. Some journals publish review protocols, which gives the plan a citable record and can ease later acceptance of the full review. Check whether the journal that publishes the protocol is willing to consider the full review, and whether publishing the protocol would count as prior publication of the review.

Living and rapid reviews. A living systematic review needs a journal that accepts updates, with a defined way of publishing new versions. Rapid reviews are accepted by fewer journals, and the editor may expect a clear statement of the shortcuts taken.

Methods and protocol-driven journals. Journals devoted to research synthesis, such as those of the Cochrane and Campbell collaborations and the main synthesis-methods journals, apply rigorous standards, and they offer a readership that understands the methods. They may require a published protocol and may have formal peer-review of methods.

Regional and language-specific journals. If the findings matter most to practitioners in one country or language community, a regional journal can have more practical impact than an international one, and may be indexed in regional databases. Consider also publishing a plain-language summary in the local language.

Student and early-career work. Theses are not usually barriers to publication, but check the journal's policy on prior publication, and obtain the agreement of supervisors on authorship before the choice is made.

If the paper is rejected

Rejection is common and not a verdict on the work. Read the decision carefully, separating comments that reflect fit from those that reflect the work. If reviewers raised substantive issues, address them before sending the paper elsewhere, since the same points are likely to arise again and some journals share reviewer reports. Reformat quickly for the next journal on the shortlist, update the search if the interval since the last search has grown, and revise the cover letter. If the rejection was by desk decision and the editor suggested a transfer to a sister journal, consider it, since it often saves time. Keep a record of the journals tried and the reasons given, so that the path is not repeated.

How we can help

We can help to build a shortlist, check each journal's requirements, prepare the manuscript to the target format, draft the cover letter and complete the reporting checklist. [OWNER VERIFICATION REQUIRED] The relevant services are publication support and manuscript editing.

Frequently asked questions