2 A guide for writing scholarly articles or reviews for the Educational Research Review

Abstract

Introduction Educational Research Review publishes different types of reviews, theoretical articles, research critiques and forum papers. It calls for a systematic meticulous approach of each contribution to foster the growth in the field. A clear and concise way of communication based on a standard and explicit organization of a review founding accessible syntheses of the evidence. This way, well-defined and unbiased strategies ensure any prospective publication meets the standards of good quality contribution to theory, practice or policy in the educational field. In short, Edurevs aspirations. (APA, 2003; Centre for dissemination and reviews, 2006). This document describes different types of reviews and other acceptable contributions. Indispensable standards and important guidelines, authors should weigh before writing for publication, will be introduced to help one structurize the review in a framework corresponding the purpose of research or type of contribution. This document intents to make prospective authors familiar with Edurev's basic principles and philosopy regarding possible publications. In general, reviews are divided in three different types or categories, each with own qualities and perspectives on reviewing a topic: a systematic review, a best-evidence synthesis and a narrative review. A systematic review identifies, appraises and synthesizes research evidence from individual studies based on a strict protocol and consequently makes a valuable source of information. This rigour approach ensures all possible and relevant research bases has been considered and a valid analysis of the original studies has been made, minimizing the risk of bias, providing a transparent study enable for replication (Centre for reviews and disseminations, 2006). The reader itself must be able to draw the same conclusions or exercise judgement concerning individual researchers' flaws (Campbell Collaboration, 2006; Crombie & Davies, 2006). The meticulous care for study inclusion in a balanced 3 impartial way serves as a measure of high quality (Crombie & Davies, 2006). A review should not be exhaustive but more situated, partial and in a desirable perspective. It is gatekeeping, policing and productive rather than merely mirroring (Lather, 1973). Systematic reviews are best suitable for focused topics (Collins & Fauser, 2005). In sum: " a Systematic Review attempts to bring the same level of rigour to reviewing research evidence as should be used in producing that research evidence in the first place. " (Crombie & Davies, 2006, p1). Meta-Analysis can be considered to pool the results of individual studies. A Best-Evidence synthesis offers an alternative to both a meta-analytic and a …