No, scoping reviews don’t require registration, but a public protocol is recommended and can be posted on OSF or in a journal.
Researchers often ask whether a scoping review must be logged in a formal registry. The short answer above sets expectations. The fuller picture below explains where registration is accepted, what top guidance says about protocols, and how to document your plan so editors and readers can trust your methods.
What Registration Means For Scoping Reviews
Registration means announcing your review plan before or during the early stages of work. For many health-focused systematic reviews, this typically involves a record in a public registry that issues an ID. For scoping reviews, there is no single, universal registry that covers all fields. Some well-known registries decline this review type, while open research platforms welcome it. That gap often creates confusion for authors who are used to the norms around systematic reviews.
Where A Scoping Review Protocol Can Live (And Where It Can’t)
The table below compares common places authors try when they want a citable, timestamped home for a scoping review protocol. It flags whether scoping reviews are accepted and gives a short note on what you’ll get.
| Platform/Registry | Accepts Scoping Reviews? | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| PROSPERO (NIHR/CRD) | No | Health review registry that excludes scoping reviews; see its published eligibility page for details. |
| OSF Registries (Center for Open Science) | Yes | Timestamped registration with public landing page; multiple templates; embargo options available. |
| INPLASY | Yes | Accepts a wide range of review protocols, including scoping reviews, with fast public posting. |
| Zenodo / protocols.io | Yes | General research repositories suitable for hosting a protocol record with a DOI or persistent link. |
| Peer-reviewed Journals | Varies | Some journals publish standalone scoping review protocols; check aims/scope and word limits. |
Two touchstones shape current practice. First, the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews asks authors to state whether a protocol exists and where readers can access it. Second, the main health registry for systematic reviews excludes scoping reviews. Linking those pieces together gives authors a clean plan: publish a protocol and point readers to a stable home that fits this review type.
Do You Need To Register A Scoping Review: Practical Rules
There is no blanket rule that forces registration. That said, transparency around your plan is expected. Many journals and supervisors want to see a dated protocol and a clear record of any changes. If your target journal publishes protocols, great—submit there. If not, post a protocol on a stable platform that issues a persistent link and add that link to your article.
What Leading Guidance Says
PRISMA-ScR includes an item that prompts authors to state whether a protocol exists and where it can be accessed. That line can sit in your methods section and point to a registry page or a protocol paper. The Joanna Briggs Institute manual for scoping reviews also encourages authors to plan and document methods up front, mirroring good practice in the evidence-synthesis field.
One registry detail trips up many authors: PROSPERO is built for systematic reviews with health outcomes and does not take scoping reviews. When a journal expects a “registration number” for scoping work, authors can meet the same transparency goal by linking a protocol on an open platform.
Author-Friendly Links You Can Cite In Your Manuscript
- PROSPERO eligibility (clarifies exclusions for scoping reviews).
- PRISMA-ScR checklist on the EQUATOR Network.
Why A Public Protocol Still Helps
A protocol makes your intent clear and reduces room for bias. It shows how you will set eligibility, build searches, manage screening, and present results. It also gives readers a place to check any changes you make later. Editors appreciate that structure because it supports consistency and speeds peer review.
How To Set Up A Solid Protocol
Use established headings so others can follow your plan. The outline below aligns with common expectations across PRISMA-ScR and JBI methods.
Core Sections To Include
These sections give most readers what they need to assess your intent and methods:
- Objective and scope — what question you want to map and why the topic needs a scoping approach.
- Eligibility — inclusion and exclusion rules by population/topic, concept, context, and source type.
- Information sources — databases, trial registries, preprints, handsearching, and citation chasing.
- Search strategy — sample lines for at least one database with filters and date limits.
- Screening and selection — number of reviewers, how conflicts will be resolved, and software used.
- Data charting — variables you’ll capture and a draft charting form.
- Synthesis plan — how you’ll group findings, tables or maps you’ll produce, and any planned subgrouping.
- Stakeholder input (if any) — how domain experts or users will advise scope or interpretation.
- Deviations and updates — how you’ll record changes from the protocol after registration or posting.
Where To Post The Protocol
If your field lacks a dedicated registry, pick a platform that produces a stable URL, timestamps the record, and allows updates with clear versioning. OSF Registries, INPLASY, or a protocol paper in a suitable journal all meet that bar. Each option creates a link you can cite in the manuscript and in conference slides, which helps readers verify your plan.
Common Scenarios And The Best Path
Different teams have different constraints. Use the guide below to pick a path that fits your project timeline and venue.
| Scenario | Best Path | Benefit |
|---|---|---|
| Thesis timeline with tight deadlines | Post on OSF Registries with a short embargo; submit manuscript with a link. | Fast timestamp and a citable record while you finish chapters. |
| Team wants a formal peer-reviewed protocol | Submit a protocol article to a journal that welcomes scoping review protocols. | Peer review of methods and a stable citation for grant reporting. |
| Health project where a registry ID is expected | Note that PROSPERO excludes scoping reviews; include an OSF link in the methods. | Meets transparency needs with a record editors can verify. |
| Rapid project with evolving scope | Register on OSF and use versioned updates when criteria change. | Clear trail of decisions without slowing delivery. |
Step-By-Step: Posting A Protocol On OSF Registries
This quick run-through helps you set up a clean, citable record in one sitting.
Account And Project
Create an OSF account and start a project. Add your team with the roles you need for editing and visibility. Organize files into folders: Protocol, Searches, Data Charting, and Administrative. Upload a PDF or DOCX of the protocol and keep the editable version under version control.
Choose A Registration Template
Select a template that fits a review design. A general preregistration template works for many scoping projects. Fill the fields with the sections listed above. Paste your sample search lines, link any appendices, and state how you’ll handle changes.
Privacy And Embargo
Decide whether to post publicly right away or set an embargo. If you set an embargo, pick an end date that aligns with your submission plan. Share a private view-only link with collaborators or journal editors if they ask to see the record before it goes live.
Submit And Cite
Submit the registration. Copy the permanent link and place it in your protocol and in the methods section of your eventual review article under “Protocol and registration.” That line can read along these lines: “A protocol was posted on OSF Registries (link) before screening.”
What Editors And Reviewers Look For
Editors want a clear scope, a method that fits the scoping aim, and a protocol that matches what you finally did. If you made changes, note them. If you widened or narrowed criteria after a pilot round, say so and explain why. A clean trail builds confidence in your synthesis and reduces back-and-forth during peer review.
How To Word The Methods Section
Most journals expect a short statement that points to your protocol and notes adherence to PRISMA-ScR. A plain template you can adapt:
We conducted a scoping review guided by the PRISMA-ScR checklist. A protocol was posted on a public registry before screening and updated during data charting. Deviations from the protocol are listed in the Supplement.
This keeps the line tight while giving readers a path to the full details.
Handling Changes After Posting
Scoping reviews can evolve as you learn about the literature. When you adjust eligibility, revise the charting form, or add sources, log the change. OSF Registries supports versioned updates so readers can see what changed and when. If your protocol is a journal article, add a short update note in your Supplement and point to it in the methods.
Ethics, Conflicts, And Data Management
Even when registration isn’t required, many teams add short statements about ethics, funding, and conflicts in the protocol. For data management, note where your charted dataset will live and under what license. If you use a repository that issues a DOI for the dataset, list the DOI in your manuscript so readers can reuse your extraction sheet.
Frequently Missed Details
- Missing sample search lines. Include at least one full database strategy with date of search.
- Vague screening process. State the number of reviewers per record and how disagreements are handled.
- No plan for updates. Describe how you will record departures from the protocol.
- Ambiguous scope statement. Spell out population/topic, concept, and context so readers can predict what will be in or out.
Template Wording You Can Reuse
Below are short, ready-to-adapt lines that keep your documentation tight and clear.
Protocol Availability
“The protocol is available on a public registry at [link]. Any updates will be logged as versioned changes on that page.”
Adherence To Reporting Guidance
“Reporting follows the PRISMA-ScR checklist; the completed checklist appears in the Supplement.”
Method Adjustments
“After a pilot round, we refined eligibility to exclude sources without an abstract. This change is recorded on the protocol page.”
When A Journal Asks For A Registration Number
If a submission system has a hard field for “registry ID,” add a note that scoping reviews are not eligible for PROSPERO and supply the OSF or journal-protocol link in the text box or cover letter. Many editors are familiar with this difference and accept a link in place of a registry ID.
What This Means For Your Review
Registration isn’t mandatory for scoping reviews, but a public protocol is expected practice. The easiest route is to post on a platform that welcomes this review type and gives you a stable link. Then, cite that link in your article and follow PRISMA-ScR. This keeps your project transparent, speeds peer review, and gives readers a clear view of your plan.