Rapid Review Manuscripts

Highly specialised requests are first checked for feasibility from this information. Please do not send confidential data through the public form; describe it first and agree secure transfer afterwards.

1. 01Enquiry and requirement assessment
2. 02Technical scoping and proposal
3. 03Execution
4. 04Quality review and delivery, with an agreed round of revisions

Read the full project workflow.

In depth: how the work is done

1. Justifying the rapid approach

   The manuscript should explain the time constraint or decision context and show that a rapid approach is appropriate. Guidance from rapid-review methods groups can be cited. The justification protects the authors from claims of cutting corners.

2. Documenting streamlining choices

   Each shortcut should be listed in a table: databases searched, dates and language restrictions, number of screeners, extraction method, appraisal approach. For each, authors state the rationale and the possible effect. This is the core of the methods section.

3. Search and selection reporting

   Searches are reported as fully as in any review, even if fewer sources were used. Screening by a single reviewer with a second reviewer verifying a sample is common, and the agreement should be reported. A flow diagram documents selection.

4. Timely synthesis

   Rapid reviews often use narrative synthesis or tabular summaries structured to answer the decision-maker's questions. Findings should be organised so that key messages are clear. We help authors write short, focused syntheses and avoid unnecessary detail.

5. Appraisal in a rapid context

   Appraisal may be simplified, for example by applying a few key criteria, or by using the judgements of a single reviewer. Authors should report what was done and how appraisal affected conclusions. Where no appraisal was done, the manuscript says so.

6. Communicating uncertainty

   Conclusions should be proportionate to the evidence and the methods. Statements such as findings may change with a full review help readers. We help authors express uncertainty without undermining the usefulness of the review.

7. Stakeholder involvement

   Rapid reviews are often commissioned, and stakeholders may have shaped the questions. Declaring this involvement and any potential influence on conclusions is part of transparent reporting.

8. Reporting time, resources and team

   Rapid reviews are defined by their timelines, so reporting the actual time taken, the number of people involved and the resources available lets readers judge what was feasible. It also supports others planning similar projects. We help authors present these facts briefly in the methods section along with the commissioning context.

9. Planning an update after the rapid phase

   A rapid review can be the first stage of a fuller review. Authors can state which steps would be added in an update, such as extra databases, duplicate screening or formal appraisal, and how the rapid findings would be tested. Keeping records in a form that supports updating saves time and strengthens the credibility of the original work.

10. Choosing the right outputs for busy readers

    Because rapid reviews serve time-pressed users, a clear structured summary, a one-page evidence table and plain-language key messages are valuable. These should be consistent with the full text and should not overstate certainty. We help authors design the summary elements and check that they match the detailed results.

11. Evaluating the usefulness of a rapid review

    A rapid review should be judged by whether it supports the decision it was commissioned for. Authors may report how findings were used, feedback from the commissioning body and what additional evidence was needed. Including a brief reflection on strengths and weaknesses of the rapid approach in this context adds value to the methodological literature on rapid reviews.

Common pitfalls this service helps avoid

• Undeclared shortcuts. Readers cannot judge bias risk.
• Overconfident conclusions. Streamlined methods call for caution.
• Excessive detail in results. Decision makers need clear key messages.
• Hidden stakeholder influence. Declare commissioning and involvement.

What good reporting looks like

Support for a rapid review manuscript is documented with a streamlining table, an agreement report from the authors, a limitations statement and a PRISMA checklist record with adaptations. The authors conduct the review; we do not invent studies or findings and offer no guarantee of acceptance.

An illustrative scenario

Hypothetical example written for explanation. It is not a client case, a result or a testimonial.

Suppose a team is asked for an evidence summary on lithium-ion battery second-life applications within six weeks. They search two databases, restrict to English and the last ten years, and use one screener with a second verifying 20 percent of records. The manuscript lists these choices, reports agreement and cautions that grey-literature reports and non-English studies were not included.

Questions to settle before you begin

• Why was a rapid approach appropriate?
• Which steps did I streamline and why?
• How might these affect the findings?
• Who commissioned the review?
• What caveats should the conclusions carry?

Key terms

Rapid review

A review using streamlined methods to produce timely evidence.

Streamlining

Simplifying review steps.

Screening agreement

The consistency between reviewers' decisions.

Narrative synthesis

A descriptive synthesis of findings.

Time constraint

A limit on available time for the review.

Working together on Review Article Writing projects

Review article engagements begin by choosing the review type that fits the question, because systematic, scoping, narrative and bibliometric reviews have different methods and reporting expectations. We ask for the topic, the target journal and any searches or papers you already have. The method is documented so that the review can be audited, and every source cited is checked against the original. We do not invent references or studies, and we state limitations such as database coverage. Acceptance depends on editors and reviewers and cannot be promised.

Few projects need a single service in isolation. These are the services most often combined with this one.

• Systematic Review Manuscripts

  Manuscript preparation for systematic reviews that have been conducted with a defined protocol: reporting the search, selection, appraisal and synthesis in line with PRISMA 2020 reporting principles.

• Scoping Review Manuscripts

  Manuscript support for scoping reviews that map the extent and nature of evidence on a broad topic, reporting the process transparently without judging study quality in the way a systematic review does.

• Systematic Literature Reviews

  Reproducible literature synthesis for engineering topics, using a pre-defined protocol, documented search strings, transparent screening and structured extraction, so the review can be audited and updated.