HOW TO WRITE

SLR???

By:
Azlan Abas
CONTENT What is SLR
01 Basic definition; comparison to other paper; why SLR?

02 Structure
Flow of structure; the compulsory; the “nothing wrong with it”

03 Technique
Technique of writing; the table; the sentences; the method

04 Submit
How to submit; where to submit; critical step
What is SLR???
WHY REVIEW PAPER?
WHY REVIEW PAPER?
- To find the gap in your study
WHY SLR PAPER?
 WHY SLR PAPER?
• its use of explicit and transparent methods
• its adherence to following a standard set of
research stages
• its requirement that the review is accountable,
replicable and up-dateable
• its requirement of user involvement to ensure
reports are relevant and useful
 SLR vs other review paper
1. The goal of the review
The goal of a literature review can be broad and descriptive (example: “Describe the available treatments for
sleep apnea”) or it can be to answer a specific question (example: “What is the efficacy of CPAP for people
with sleep apnea?”).

The goal of a systematic review is to answer a specific and focused question (example: “Which treatment for
sleep apnea reduces the apnea-hypopnea index more: CPAP or mandibular advancement device?”).

People seeking to make evidence-based decisions look to systematic reviews due to their completeness and
reduced risk of bias.
 SLR vs other review paper (cont.)
2. Searching for evidence
Where and how one searches for evidence is an important difference. While literature reviews require only one
database or source, systematic reviews require more comprehensive efforts to locate evidence.

Multiple databases are searched, each with a specifically tailored search strategy (usually designed and
implemented by a specialist librarian).

In addition, systematic reviews often include attempts to find data beyond typical databases.

Systematic reviewers might search conference abstracts or the web sites of professional associations or
pharmaceutical companies, and they may contact study authors to obtain additional or unpublished data.

All of these extra steps reflect an attempt to minimize bias in the summary of the evidence.
 SLR vs other review paper (cont.)
3. Assessing search results
In a systematic review, the parameters for inclusion are established at the start of the project and applied
consistently to search results.

Usually, such parameters take the form of PICOs (population, intervention, comparison, outcomes). Reviewers
hold search results against strict criteria based on the PICOs to determine appropriateness for inclusion.

Another key component of a systematic review is dual independent review of search results; each search
result is reviewed by at least two people independently.

In many other literature reviews, there is only a single reviewer. This can result in bias (even if it is
unintentional) and missed studies.
 SLR vs other review paper (cont.)
4. Summary of findings
In a systematic review, an effort is usually made to assess the quality of the evidence, often using risk of bias
assessment, at the study level and often across studies.

Other literature reviews rarely assess and report any formal quality assessment by individual study.

Risk of bias assessment is important to a thorough summary of the evidence, since conclusions based on
biased results can be incorrect (and dangerous, at worst).

Results from a systematic review can sometimes be pooled quantitatively (e.g., in a meta-analysis) to provide
numeric estimates of treatment effects, for example.
 SLR vs other review paper (cont.)
5. Utility of results
Due to the rigor and transparency applied to a systematic review, it is not surprising that the results are usually
of higher quality and at lower risk of bias than results from other types of literature review.

Literature reviews can be useful to inform background sections of papers and reports and to give the reader an
overview of a topic.

Systematic reviews are used by professional associations and government agencies to issue guidelines and
recommendations; such important activities are rarely based on a non-systematic review.

Clinicians may also rely on high quality systematic reviews to make evidence-based decisions about patient
care.
Structure
 SLR Structure
Introduction
Write your introduction using the “inverted pyramid”
concept. Use the 4 paragraphs rule. 1) world view,
public view 2) literature, previous study, concept 3) Research Methodology
problem and issues 4) aims and objectives 1) Introduce the protocol, 2) formulation of RQ, 3)
Searching strategies, 4) appraisal of quality, 5) data
Results analysis
1) Spatial and temporal distribution, 2) contextual
issues 3) Thematic analysis
Discussion
1) Answer all the RQ, 2) discuss the most common 3)
discuss the less common
Conclusion
1) Summarize all significant findings, 2) the novelty of
the study, 3) the contribution of the study, 4) the
impact of the study
Technique
 ABSTRACT & TITLE
• Around 250-350 words. It summarizes the whole SLR paper.

• Write your abstract straight to the point, concise and brief but
informative.

• Abstract is the first thing that the editor and reviewer will read
to determine either your SLR paper is up to their standard or
not.
 ABSTRACT & TITLE
• 1) Introduction
• 2) Problem statement and gap
• 3) Objectives
• 4) Methodology
• 5) Results
• 6) Significance of study/Recommendations
 ABSTRACT & TITLE
• INTRODUCTION (a little introduction on what your SLR paper all about)
• PROBLEM STATEMENT & RESEARCH GAP (What is the main issue or
problem need to be solved)
• OBJECTIVE (What is the aim of this study?)
• METHODOLOGY (be selective, don’t put everything, just write the important and
significant method)
• RESULTS (just state the significant findings related to the aim)
• RECOMMENDATION/SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY (Based on the findings and
discussion what can suggested from this study? What is the contribution?).
ABSTRACT & TITLE
ABSTRACT & TITLE
 INTRODUCTION

• Usually this section contains four parts:

• Global and public view

• Conceptual Definition, Previous study etc.
• Research problem and issues
• Research aim and objective
 INTRODUCTION
Global and public view
• Global view on the study
• Public perception on the study
• Provide some statistics from international and relevant organization
• Discuss on the context, not the problem
 INTRODUCTION
Literature review, Previous study, Conceptual Definition
• Introduce the concept used in the study
• Provide sufficient previous study
• If there are theories or frameworks used in the study, explain all of it.
• Combination of old and new literature.
• Make sure all of the keywords were explained
 INTRODUCTION
Problem and Issue
• Introduce your main problem + literature and data
• Provide the issues that might appear if the problem still exist.
• Add literature and data to each issue.
 INTRODUCTION
Aim and Objective
• Introduce your main aim. “To systematically review…….”
• At least 2 -3 objectives to achieve the aim.
INTRODUCTION
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

*Please put extra effort in writing this section* - QA & QC

• Source of reference/protocol (guided by something)

• formulation of research question
• systematic searching strategies (identification, screening,
eligibility)
• appraisal of quality
• data extraction and analysis
Guided by something
(reference/protocol)
• Please state the source of reference or protocol used in your SLR paper.

• Review protocol, publication standard, established guidelines or referred

to the existing SLR paper?

• In this section, we must justify why we choose to use the protocol (state
the strength of the protocol)

• If you use adaptation method from other SLR paper, please justify and
mention the strength of that method and give a brief explanation for that
method.
Formulation of research questions

• At least one research question needed.

• This section has to focus on building up your research
questions.
• Describe the process to build the research question for your
SLR paper. What kind of Research Question Development Tool
(RQDT) that you want to use? (e.g. PICo; PICO; SPIDER)
Systematic searching strategies

This section must be divided into three parts:

• Identification
• Screening
• Eligibility
Identification

Explain the process for the identification, where your write up

should focus on:
• Searching keywords?
• How you vary the keywords?
• What search engine or database did you used?
• What kind of searching string technique that you used?
 Creating Keywords
How to create or identify the keyword?

From the title

Using PICo

e.g.: “A SLR on the Local Wisdom on the Indigenous People in

Nature Conservation”

“A SLR on the Influential Factor for Voting Behaviour among

Young Adults”
Screening
• Explain the process on how the screening were done, where you
can emphasize on:
• The selection criteria that used to select the suitable article for
SLR, and give reason and justification for that.
• State how many articles that were rejected and accepted for every
step of screening.
Eligibility
• Explain the eligibility process briefly.
• State how many articles that were rejected and
accepted for every step of eligibility.
Appraisal of quality

You should focus on three aspects in this section:

• Explain who will do the appraisal of quality
• Explain the technique used, give the strength of the technique
• Explain on how the process of the appraisal of quality will be
done.
Data extraction and analysis

• Explain on how the data extraction process will be conducted.

• Explain the approach of analysis that will be used, either it is
quantitative or qualitative? Give reason for the selection of the
approach.
• Explain the type of data analysis that will be used in your SLR
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
 RESULTS
• In this section, explain descriptively on themes and sub-themes
that have been produced.
• Use interesting Figure, Graph or Map to show your data to
attract the audience attention.
• The most important thing is to show all the results that answer
all the research objectives.
• If you have 3 objectives, then you should have 3 sub-topics
under results.
DISCUSSION

• The basic things to do in this section is to develop the research

scope.
• DO NOT REPEAT your results description. Please expand and
extend.
• Use the reasoning technique to expand your idea and
discussion. Use other similar studies to make comparison and
reasoning.
• Here, you should justify and give reason to every significant
data.
• Discuss the most and the least.
• Discuss to answer all the research questions.
CONCLUSION – TIPS

• Conclude all your study in a very simple and short sentence.

• Remind back your study’s findings.
• Emphasize on the novelty, implication and contribution of the
study.
• Optional: provides recommendation and limitation of the study.
• Do not take the conclusion lightly. It may lead to early rejection
to your paper.
REFERENCES – TIPS

• Use Mendeley or Endnote and others.

• Use APA 7th Edition of referencing format.
Submit
 Road to Publication!!!

Editorial
Writing Review Publish
screening

Technical
Proofreading Correction Proof
screening

Journal Editorial
Submission Copy-editing
selection revision
EXTRA STRATEGIES TO PUBLISH IN
HIGH IMPACT JOURNAL
Journal selection Good title and abstract Proofreader
Understand the scope and aim of the Use PICo formula for you title. A good title Hire a proofreader to check your
journal. Make sure it is match with should have the ability to tell the audience language and formatting style. No
your article. 90% of early rejection is on what is the main findings of the study. matter how good you are in English
due to unmatched scope between Abstract must brief but concise. Short but or formatting, you are just a normal
article and journal. Please use holistic. A good abstract will catch the human being. Of course, you will
manuscript matcher or keywords from attention of the reviewer. make mistakes.
your article while finding the journal.

Refer to the prominence Good Cover Letter Reviewer always right!!!

scholar A good and informative cover letter tell how The reviewer is always right!
serious the authors in submitting their Remember! Your reviewer sometimes
Please get advice from the top scholar manuscript. You should use your official a professor but sometimes a student.
in your field of study. Either inviting letter head and please put down your Just make yourself humble and open
them as the co-author or maybe just a signature. Tell almost everything briefly in the to critics. But if you don’t agree on the
few comments from them about your cover letter on the process of writing and comment, respond with manner and
paper. The concept of “standing on the conducting the study. reason.
shoulder of the giants” must be applied.
Thank You