Review Protocol

Grading criteria: Protocol (70%)

Length: approx. 15 pages

Title page information:

• Topic
• Title
• Abstract (clarity)
• Keywords

Introduction:

• Generativity statement
• Clear topic, phenomenon, theory
• Explicit and appropriate rationale
• Clear questions or objectives
• Optional: review type
• Expected contributions
• Clear scope

Intermediary section (optional; note if it should be included)

Methods:

• State type of review (justify if necessary)
• Description of search strategy and procedures (in line with review type)
• Description of screening criteria
• Quality appraisal (if applicable)
• Data extraction procedures explicit and aligned with review type
• Data analysis and synthesis approach described

Expected results:

• Structure of the synthesis (first-level headings)
• Proposed presentation of synthesis (e.g., in the form of a table or figure)

Conclusion / Short limitations, implications for research and practice

Appendix:

• List of contributors and responsibilities (optional)
• Timetable (mandatory)
• List of tools and purposes (mandatory)
• Intended registration (optional)
• Other declarations (optional)

References (quality and completeness)

Prior work must be cited appropriately. We run a plagiarism check for all protocols.

Submission: via e-mail to gerit.wagner@uni-bamberg.de

Grading criteria: Presentation (30%)

Length: 10-15 minutes

Resources

Template

You can use the template for Markdown (create repository from template), word, or adapt existing LaTeX templates.

Papers

Paré, G., Wagner, G., & Prester, J. (2023). How to develop and frame impactful review articles: key recommendations. Journal of Decision Systems, 1-17. link