Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences

EDITORIAL
Year
: 2017  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 79-

Fine tune your review works please!


Shazia Qasim Jamshed 
 Department of Pharmacy Practice, Kulliyyah of Pharmacy, International Islamic University , Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia

Correspondence Address:
Shazia Qasim Jamshed
Department of Pharmacy Practice, Kulliyyah of Pharmacy, International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuantan, Pahang
Malaysia




How to cite this article:
Jamshed SQ. Fine tune your review works please!.J Pharm Bioall Sci 2017;9:79-79


How to cite this URL:
Jamshed SQ. Fine tune your review works please!. J Pharm Bioall Sci [serial online] 2017 [cited 2020 Oct 22 ];9:79-79
Available from: https://www.jpbsonline.org/text.asp?2017/9/2/79/208906


Full Text

As one of the section editors of Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences (JPBS), I am pleased to address all the authors, reviewers, and publishing staff again this year. Another year of fruitful interaction mutually engaged the editors, authors, reviewers, and publishing staff at JPBS. The past year was an amalgamation of mixed emotions for all those involved with JPBS. Publication charges levied on accepted manuscripts followed by journal inclusion in Thomson Reuters Emerging Sources Citation Index. On behalf of editorial and publishing team, I express my vote of thanks to all authors and reviewers for your continued support.

Last year we received 15% of manuscripts as review articles. The lack of any proper concept or rationale behind the topic coupled with the absence of any conceptual framework and software application subjected them to rejection. I hope that this editorial acts as an “informational impetus” for prospective authors to submit their quality review work to the journal.

A large body of literature encompasses the purpose, aims, objectives, and the context of writing a review article, general principles, and key steps to be followed for search and appraisal, supported by synthesis and analysis.[1],[2],[3]

Within the past two decades, the onus is shifted principally toward narrative reviews, scoping reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, and umbrella review. A few follows both narrative and tabular format with quality assessment of the included studies while majority embrace narrative syntheses with no graphical inputs. The availability and use of software for reference management, evaluation, and organization of literature search along with the identification of ingrained ideas followed by the recording of summaries of related research render a systematically sophisticated approach to literature review.[4],[5],[6]

As “one size does not fit all,” similarly every review type cannot address every research gap. A highly dedicated professional team of experienced and novice researchers is needed to work in close collaboration, where continuous facilitation followed by validation to the input of novice researcher make the gist of an appropriate literature review.

It is expected that the prospective authors can submit their review manuscripts as narrative types, systematic or scoping types utilizing ATLAS.ti, LitAssist, and NVivo for their scholarly well-organized literature.

References

1Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J 2009;26:91-108.
2Pautasso M. Ten simple rules for writing a literature review. PLoS Comput Biol 2013;9:e1003149.
3Garrard J. Health Sciences Literature Review Made Easy. 5th ed. USA: Jones and Bartlett Learning; 2017.
4Mohamad AM. Using ATLAS.ti 8 Windows in Literature Reviews. Available from: http://www.atlasti.com/2017/02/09/lit-reviews/. [Last accessed on 2017 Apr 15].
5Available from: http://www.litassist.com/. [Last accessed on 2017 Apr 15].
6Available from: http://www.qsrinternational.com/blog/hone-your-nvivo-skills-with-literature-reviews. [Last accessed on 2017 Apr 15].