Service overview
Research planning, literature synthesis, methodology, proposals and feasibility work. This service is part of that division and is scoped individually around what you need to learn, decide or publish.
A literature review becomes a systematic review when its method can be inspected. The question is stated in advance, the search is documented well enough for someone else to run it, the criteria for including and excluding studies are written down before screening begins, and every decision is recorded. The payoff is credibility: readers can see how the evidence base was assembled and can judge whether it is complete enough to support the conclusions.
In engineering the approach is adapted rather than copied from medicine. Study designs vary widely, outcomes are rarely standardised and a large share of relevant work appears in conference proceedings, standards and technical reports. A good engineering systematic review keeps the discipline of the method while being realistic about heterogeneity, and it states honestly when the evidence is too varied to be combined statistically.
If you plan to publish the outcome, see manuscript & publication support, for example computational & simulation manuscripts or original research article writing.
What this service covers
Problems this service can address
- Ad hoc searching that misses relevant work and cannot be reproduced
- Inconsistent inclusion and exclusion decisions across a large result set
- Difficulty turning many heterogeneous studies into a coherent evidence summary
Methods and analytical approaches
- Protocol drafting aligned with PRISMA 2020 reporting principles
- Multi-database search string design and deduplication
- Dual-stage screening with recorded decisions
- Structured data extraction and quality or risk-of-bias appraisal where appropriate
Applications
- Thesis literature chapters
- Technology readiness and state-of-practice assessments
- Evidence base for a proposal or standard
Relevant engineering disciplines
Scope, inputs and deliverables
Scope of work
- Review of your objectives, constraints and the evidence already available
- Selection of methods suited to the question and the data
- Analysis or synthesis with documented, repeatable steps
- Written outputs you can reuse in a thesis, proposal or report
- Feasibility check on: review question and scope
Typical inputs required from you
- Review question and scope
- Target databases and date limits (or let us propose them)
- Any seed papers you already consider relevant
Deliverables
- Search protocol and string log
- Screening record and flow diagram
- Extraction tables and narrative synthesis
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.
Project workflow and method
- 01Enquiry and requirement assessment
- 02Technical scoping and proposal
- 03Execution
- 04Quality review and delivery, with an agreed round of revisions
Read the full project workflow.
In depth: how the work is done
Protocol and question formulation
The protocol fixes the review question, scope, eligibility criteria, information sources, search strategy, screening process, data items to extract and the planned synthesis before results are seen. Frameworks such as population, intervention, comparison and outcome are adapted to engineering, for example material or system, treatment or design variable, baseline, and measured property. Registering or at least archiving the protocol protects against unconscious shifting of criteria after the first results appear, and it gives reviewers something concrete to evaluate.
Search design, databases and deduplication
Search strings are built from concept groups combining controlled vocabulary where it exists with free-text synonyms, spelling variants and abbreviations common in the field. Strings are tested against a set of known relevant papers to estimate whether they retrieve them, then adapted to each database's syntax. Because no single database covers engineering literature completely, multiple sources are combined, and grey literature or citation chasing is added where justified. Records are exported with full metadata and deduplicated using documented rules, with the counts at each step recorded for the flow diagram.
Screening and eligibility decisions
Screening proceeds in stages, titles and abstracts first, then full texts, each against written criteria. Pilot rounds on a sample test whether the criteria are clear enough that different readers reach the same decision, and ambiguous rules are refined before the main round. Reasons for excluding full-text records are logged. Where more than one screener is available, disagreements are resolved by discussion or a third reader; where a single reviewer works, that limitation is declared as a methodological constraint.
Extraction, appraisal and synthesis
A structured extraction form captures study characteristics, materials or systems, test or simulation conditions, outcomes with units and any information needed to judge quality. Appraisal uses criteria suited to the study type, such as clarity of reporting, control of confounding variables, calibration, validation of models or representativeness of conditions. Synthesis is tabular and narrative first, grouping studies by design or outcome, and quantitative pooling is considered only if studies are genuinely comparable, in which case the meta-analysis service becomes relevant.
Keeping the review current and reusable
A systematic review is a living asset when it is documented well. Search strings, run dates and screening decisions are stored in a form that allows the same query to be rerun later, so the evidence base can be updated without starting again. Extraction tables can be reused for subsequent chapters or papers, and the flow diagram records exactly how many studies were found at each stage. This also makes it easier to answer reviewer questions about why a particular study was or was not included.
Quality control and good practice
Quality-control approach
- Search, selection or analysis steps are documented so another researcher can repeat them.
- Assumptions, exclusions and limitations are stated rather than implied.
- Numbers in text, tables and figures are cross-checked for consistency.
- Conclusions are limited to what the evidence supports.
Common pitfalls this service helps avoid
- Search strings that are too narrow. Using only one or two keywords misses studies that use different terminology, which is common across engineering sub-fields.
- Changing criteria mid-review. Adjusting eligibility rules after seeing which studies would be excluded introduces bias and undermines the claim that the process is systematic.
- Equating quantity with quality. Counting studies without appraising them lets weak or poorly reported work carry the same weight as rigorous work.
- Reporting without the audit trail. A review that does not publish its search strings, dates and screening counts cannot be reproduced and is hard to defend.
What good reporting looks like
Reporting follows the PRISMA 2020 principles as adapted for the field: a flow diagram with numbers at each stage, the full search strategy for each source, eligibility criteria, an extraction table, appraisal results, a synthesis organised around the question and an explicit discussion of limitations including database coverage, language limits and publication bias. Supplementary files hold the strings and decision logs so the review can be updated later. The service supports the method and the write-up; it does not manufacture studies, and conclusions follow only from what the included studies show.
An illustrative scenario
Hypothetical example written for explanation. It is not a client case, a result or a testimonial.
Imagine a researcher preparing a thesis chapter on corrosion-resistant coatings for marine structures. The protocol states the question, the databases and the criteria, for example requiring that studies report exposure duration and a quantitative degradation measure. The initial search returns several thousand records; deduplication, title screening and full-text screening reduce them to a manageable set with recorded reasons for each exclusion. The extraction table then reveals that most studies use different test standards, which leads to a narrative synthesis grouped by standard instead of a forced pooled estimate.
Questions to settle before you begin
- Is my question focused enough to be answered by a defined set of studies?
- Which databases cover my field, and what do they miss?
- Can a second person screen at least a sample of records?
- How will I handle studies that report in incompatible ways?
- Where will I archive my protocol and search record?
Key terms
- Protocol
- A written plan for the review fixed before screening begins.
- Search string
- The structured combination of keywords and operators used to query a database.
- Deduplication
- Removal of repeated records retrieved from multiple sources.
- Eligibility criteria
- Rules for including or excluding studies.
- PRISMA flow diagram
- A figure showing how many records were identified, screened, excluded and included.
Working together on Research & Academic Consulting projects
Research and academic consulting engagements usually begin with a short conversation and a written summary of the question, the existing evidence and the intended outcome, such as a thesis chapter, a proposal or a journal article. We ask for what you already have, however rough: notes, drafts, data tables and the instructions of the committee or funder. Review is iterative and focuses on reasoning rather than wording, so you should expect questions that challenge assumptions. Authorship, scientific claims and institutional compliance remain yours. Deliverables are written so that you can reuse them directly in your own documents and defend them when asked how a decision was reached.
Frequently asked questions
How is this different from the manuscript service for systematic reviews?
This service covers conducting the review itself. The manuscript service (Systematic Review Manuscripts) covers shaping the completed review into a journal-ready article. Many clients use both in sequence.
How long does a systematic review take?
It depends on how many records the search returns, how many reviewers are available and how complex the extraction is. Scoping with a pilot search gives a realistic estimate before commitment.
Do I need two reviewers?
Dual screening is best practice because it reduces individual error. When only one reviewer is possible, the review can still be done, but the limitation should be stated and piloting is more important.
What is the difference between this and a scoping review?
A systematic review answers a focused question and often appraises study quality. A scoping review maps the breadth and nature of the evidence on a broader topic. See the review article writing pathway for the comparison.
Can the review be updated later?
Yes. A documented protocol and search log make updates straightforward: the same strings are rerun for the new period and new records are screened with the same criteria.
How is this service scoped and priced?
After your enquiry we review what you need, ask for missing information and send a written scope and quotation. Price depends on complexity, deliverables and timeline. See the project workflow.