Well-executed research reviews are critical for both research and practice. However, until rather recently research reviews, especially those completed to inform practice, were not particularly rigorous as they were often lacking systematic approaches for synthesizing information. The advent of the Cochrane Collaboration resulted in important improvements to research reviews by providing resources for reviews, particularly reviews of randomized controlled trials, and contributing to a proliferation of published reviews (Aveyard & Bradbury-Jones, 2019).

At Nursing Research, we have generally limited the types and topics of reviews we consider. At a recent editorial board meeting, however, we not only affirmed our interest in rigorously conducted reviews that focus on topics of importance to nursing science but also agreed to support a broader range of topics considered important for scientific progress. For example, we have a long-standing call for reviews related to symptom science, including topics focused on the characterization of symptom phenotypes based on self-reported experience, identification of potential biomarkers including genomic or other omics-related measures, and the development of clinical interventions. The journal also has a call for integrative reviews of current advances in biological sciences and translational research relevant to emerging areas of nursing science, including genetics, genomics, and epigenetics; systems biology/integrative physiology; neuroscience and imaging; computational biology; microbiology and the human microbiome; nanoscience; and physiology. Although we remain interested in reviews about the human experience of symptoms and about emerging areas of biological and physiological markers of health and illness, we are also interested in reviews that will provide our readers with access to a broader range of topics while facilitating a more comprehensive approach to meet our editorial mission.

We have therefore revised our call for review papers resulting in a more complete alignment with our editorial mission to report scientific research findings that advance understanding of all aspects of health. Thus, just as we publish research reports about the biological, behavioral, psychosocial, and spiritual factors affecting health as well as papers resulting from investigations linking these and other factors affecting health across the spectrum, from cells to society, we also now welcome reviews in all these areas. Moreover, because nursing interventions and outcome research are critical aspects of the editorial focus of the journal, we especially encourage reviews that address the effectiveness of interventions designed for nursing care delivery.

Unchanged are the broad topics of interests held by our readers: health and illness experiences of individuals, families, and communities across the life span (including symptom science, wellness, quality of life, end of life, health trajectories, omics and the microbiome, health context, and health behavior); the effects of therapeutic actions on health promotion, disease prevention, comfort during illness, and peace at end of life (including personalized health interventions, self-management, palliative care, nursing interventions, technology-based interventions, and behavior change); nursing systems and nursing resource management (including nursing economics and patient safety research); and translation of research findings to practice (including comparative effectiveness research and meta-analysis). We also publish papers (research and reviews) about nursing education but only if they focus on nursing scientist career development including curriculum and instruction in research methods and research utilization, pre- and postdoctoral training in nursing science, and the scientific workforce in nursing. The complete call for papers can be found on the journal website at https://journals.lww.com/nursingresearchonline/Pages/callforpapers.aspx

Research reviews can take several forms. In fact, there are a plethora of review types with varying processes and degrees of rigor (Grant & Booth, 2009; Sutton et al., 2019). Of these, the review types that will be accepted for publication in Nursing Research are integrative reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. An integrative review serves to generate new knowledge on a topic through the process of review, critique, and synthesis of the literature within a specific area of focus (Whittemore & Knafl, 2005). Integrative reviews provide a broad perspective by synthesizing diverse sources of information, including empirical studies (experimental, nonexperimental, and qualitative), theoretical frameworks, and expert opinions. Authors should demonstrate how their integrative approach contributes to a deeper understanding of complex issues or facilitates the development of novel concepts to be used in further research. A systematic review, on the other hand, is focused on a research question where the review serves to identify, appraise, select, and synthesize high-quality research evidence relevant to that question. These reviews follow rigorous and transparent methods to systematically collect, assess, and synthesize existing evidence; authors are expected to use established guidelines such as PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) to ensure the quality and reproducibility of their work (Sutton et al., 2019). A meta-analysis is typically a systematic review in which statistical methods are used to combine the data from selected studies, typically randomized trials, to produce more reliable results (Haidich, 2010). Specifically, meta-analyses are conducted to assess the strength of evidence about a particular intervention to determine if an effect exists and to calculate a single summary estimate of the effect. Meta-analyses improve the precision of effect estimates and help resolve controversies arising from conflicting study results; they may also lead to new hypotheses. Notably, narrative reviews and scoping reviews, as well as other reviews based on less rigorous methods, will not be accepted.

Of course, review papers, like research papers, should be based on rigorous work. Authors are expected to follow specific review guidelines appropriate for the type of review undertaken. Authors may include review protocols in supplemental digital content; systematic reviews and meta-analyses should be registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/). Generally, we expect authors to also use published measures for assessing the quality of reviewed papers. Some examples of these can be found at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools). Other formats are acceptable; authors should report the guidelines used and the result of the quality review in their paper.

We are aware that review papers can be lengthy. At the same time, we also have page limits. Thus, we expect authors to follow our guidelines for page limits (generally 16 pages of text) and table and figure limits (no more than five in total for print; additional relevant tables and figures can be included as supplemental digital content). In particular, tables can be quite lengthy in review papers. Thus, we ask authors to use these tables judiciously being careful not to repeat in the text content that is included in the tables, and vice versa. A well-written narrative may result in the need for fewer tables or, perhaps, more concise tables.

Finally, the implications for nursing science should be made clear in the paper. Authors can do this by clearly stating the review findings in terms of what is known or not known based on the review. Authors will also want to identify and discuss areas where research is lacking or where there is need for further study. The purpose of the review should be to gain understanding about existing research and to identify research gaps. In this way, disciplinary knowledge can continue to advance, and nursing science and its scientists can continue solving important health problems.

ORCID iD

Rita H. Pickler https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9299-5583

REFERENCES