About the Journal
Focus and Scope
The Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis (SLR-M) Journal is a multidisciplinary journal focused on the research articles, reviews, and empirical research that have used Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis (SLR-M) methods in their research. The journal aimed to facilitate research in all fields of life until the SLR-M methods had been applied. The journal accepted any form of research focused on the following methodologies.
- Systematic Literature Reviews
- Structured Literature Reviews
- Bibliometric analysis
- Text Networks
- Keywords clouding
SLR-M articles that meet high academic quality standards, while still being accessible to non-specialists. The SLR-M is a peer-reviewed journal, with a blind review procedure involving at least two reviewers. The SLR-M publishes 4 issues a year.
The Peer Review Process
The Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis (SLR-M) Journal is a blind peer-reviewed journal. All articles submitted to the Journal need to pass the review process before publishing. Peer review is important to maintain the quality and integrity of scientific and scholarly research and it is aimed to evaluate the quality, validity, and originality of the research articles. In our peer review policy, firstly the articles will be scrutinized and evaluate by the editorial team, if it is according to the scope of SLR-M and considered acceptable for publication then section editor will forward it to two reviewers for blind peer review. The section editor will ensure the reviewer's areas of expertise is similar to the scope of the paper and they will ensure the review process would be without potential conflicts of interests. If Section Editor does not find a specific reviewer for the submitted manuscript, he will search for another specialist of the topic of equal repute and based on his/her expertise in his/her field. The peer-review process is blinded peer review. The reviewers will return their recommendations and reports to the Section Editor, providing general comments to the editor and both general and specific comments to the author(s). Constructive comments that might help the authors improve their work are passed on anonymously (even if the editor do not accept the submitted manuscript). After that, the editor assesses them collectively, and then makes a decision, either on his or her own or in consultation with other editors on whether to reject the manuscript. The final decision on acceptability for publication lies with the Editors-in-Chief. The Editors-in-Chief will communicate the overall result of the evaluation (rejected, accepted or accepted with modifications), including the reviewer's comments. Revised manuscripts may be subject to further peer review if appropriate.
Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis (SLR-M) Journal Publishes four regular issues a year (from 2014 onwards). SLR-M publishes 4 issues per year which may contain 2-15 articles. Occasionally, SLR-M can publish special issues about specific research themes. These special issues can have specific editors. For these special issues, specific calls for papers will be announced.
Open Access Policy
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
This journal uses the LOCKSS system to create a file distributed among the participating libraries, allowing these libraries to create permanent files of the journal with goals of preservation and restoration. SLR-M uses the PKP Preservation Network (PKP PN).
There is no submission fee for SLR-M. Unlike other journals, whose business model is based on making readers pay and therefore their contents are closed to the public, Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis (SLR-M) Journal publishes open-access content, which allows authors to reach a wider audience and foster the international and social impact of their contributions. To make this open access policy sustainable, the Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis (SLR-M) Journal is charging £200 per article. We are not receiving any funding from any organization to facilitate the publication process. The journal is also thankfull for the the voluntary services provided by researchers who has an interest in systematic literature reviews and meta-analysis to make this open access journal sustainable.
Our ethic statements are based on COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. The publication of an article in the peer-reviewed journals published by SLR-M is the process of permanent knowledge improvement. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviour for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society of society-owned or sponsored journals.
Duties of authors
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion' works should be clearly identified as such.
Data access and retention
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Originality and plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism takes many forms, from 'passing off' another's paper as the author's own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication
An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
Acknowledgement of sources
Proper acknowledgement of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
Authorship of the paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Hazards and human or animal subjects
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.
Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.
Duties of editors
The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working in conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.
An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other members of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern. It should be ensured that the peer-review process for sponsored supplements is the same as that used for the main journal. Items in sponsored supplements should be accepted solely on the basis of academic merit and interest to readers and not be influenced by commercial considerations. Non-peer reviewed sections of their journal should be clearly identified.
Involvement and cooperation in investigations
An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication. For editors who require details on recommended actions for particular types of ethics complaints, please consult our Publishing Ethics Resource Kit (PERK)
Duties of reviewers
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific method. SLR-M shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflict of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Plagiarism and originality
Authors or contributors are required to properly cite and quote sources of literature that they used in their research articles. Plagiarism may be manifested in a variety of ways such as using another's paper as the author's own paper, intentional or unintentional copying or paraphrasing parts of another's paper without citation, claiming results from research conducted by others.
In order to minimize the reception and mainly the publication of plagiarized papers, SLR-M will check all submitted articles for plagiarism using Turnitin software.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
- for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Readers insight publisher is committed to provide quality service and to work in an open and accountable way that builds the trust and respect of all our stakeholders. One of the ways in which we can continue to improve our service is by responding positively to complaints, and by putting mistakes right. Stakeholders can email their queries, complaints, and suggestions at email@example.com. All queries will be responded within 7 working days.