Writing time depends on type: narrative pieces can take 1–4 weeks; full evidence syntheses often run 12–18 months.
Writers ask this because deadlines, approvals, and coauthors all ride on a clear estimate. The honest answer is a range shaped by scope, methods, and team size. Short narrative pieces move fast when the topic is narrow and the literature is familiar. Evidence-heavy projects, like systematic reviews, demand more steps and far more hours. This guide lays out concrete timelines, what drives them, and a plan you can adapt today.
What Shapes The Timeline
Three levers set the pace. First, method: a narrative overview lets you synthesize major themes without protocol-driven screening, while systematic work requires predefined criteria, database runs, dual screening, and a documented flow. Second, breadth: a tight topic with 30–50 core papers reads and writes faster than a sprawling field with thousands of abstracts to triage. Third, people and tools: a solo author writes steadily but slowly; a small team with a shared reference manager, screening platform, and writing schedule can parallelize tasks.
How Long Writing A Review Can Take — Quick Ranges
The table below groups common review styles by time frame. The months shown for evidence syntheses reflect widely cited program guidance and library timelines, including Cochrane and academic libraries.
| Review Type | Typical Time Range | Why It Takes That Long |
|---|---|---|
| Narrative Review | 1–4 weeks | Flexible scope; focused reading; single-author drafting; light methods section. |
| Mini-Review | 1–3 weeks | Short word limits (often 3,000–3,500); tight lens on a subtopic. |
| Scoping Review | 2–6 months | Structured search and mapping; screening and charting across sources. |
| Systematic Review | 12–18+ months | Protocol, database searches, dual screening, extraction, synthesis, and reporting. |
| Rapid Review | 1 week–6 months | Streamlined steps to fit a fixed deadline; methods tailored to the window. |
For context, many library programs and guidance pages cite a year or more for a full synthesis, with Cochrane-style projects often landing near the 18-month mark from question to manuscript. A streamlined format can compress that window when a sponsor needs an answer quickly and the scope is narrow.
Time Needed To Write A Review Article: Scenarios
Solo Scholar With A Narrow Topic
Scope: a 3,000–5,000-word overview on a focused question you already track. Plan a two-week sprint: three to five days to search and skim, three days to outline and pull figures, three to four days to draft, and two days to revise and format. Add a buffer for reference cleanup and journal template quirks.
Two To Three Coauthors, Field You Know
Scope: a 5,000–6,000-word piece with simple inclusion boundaries. Set a four-week plan: one week for shared search and split reading, one week to build the structure and figure list, ten days to draft sections in parallel, and three to four days to merge tone, fix overlaps, and polish the abstract and title.
Graduate Course Or Capstone
Scope: a guided review across a semester. Use weekly milestones: topic lock-in in week 1, search string and initial screening by week 3, reading notes by week 6, full draft by week 10, peer edits and instructor pass in weeks 11–12, and final submission in week 13.
Commissioned Evidence Synthesis
Scope: policy or clinical question with formal methods. Expect months. The sponsor signs off on the protocol, which includes databases, gray literature targets, and inclusion rules. The team then runs searches, de-duplicates, screens titles and abstracts, retrieves full texts, extracts data, rates bias, and builds a forest of tables and figures. Reporting follows a standard checklist so readers can trace each step.
Method Choices Drive Months
Formal syntheses use transparent reporting so readers can see how studies were found and filtered. That adds time, yet it also raises confidence in the answer. Many institutions point writers to checklists and flow diagrams that standardize reporting, which keeps teams aligned and helps readers verify the process. The same mindset improves narrative pieces: state what you searched, how you grouped the evidence, and any limits that shaped what you included.
Mid-article is a good place to bookmark two core references you may need during planning and write-up. A widely shared library page repeats the common 18-month figure for full syntheses and collects setup resources; see the CDC’s guide to systematic reviews. For reporting, the PRISMA 2020 checklist and flow diagram help teams plan sections and figures; see the PRISMA 2020 statement.
How Word Limits And Journal Rules Affect Pace
Word caps change drafting time. Mini-reviews keep the text short and move faster; many journals cap these near three to four thousand words. General narrative pieces often sit around five to six thousand words. Some outlets ask for a structured abstract and specific section headings. Templates, figure caps, and reference styles also add hours during the final pass. Before typing, pick a target journal and load its author guide into your reference manager so the team writes to the template from day one.
Phase-By-Phase Time Budget
Use this simple grid to plan sprints. Swap in your own dates after you lock your topic and database list.
| Phase | Short Review (1–4 Weeks) | Evidence Synthesis (3–18 Months) |
|---|---|---|
| Scoping & Question Refinement | 0.5–2 days | 2–6 weeks (protocol drafting and sign-off) |
| Search Strategy & Runs | 1–3 days | 2–8 weeks (multiple databases, gray sources) |
| Screening | 1–3 days (manual triage) | 4–12 weeks (dual screening with calibration) |
| Data Extraction | 1–2 days (key studies only) | 4–10 weeks (forms, pilot, dual extraction) |
| Synthesis & Writing | 3–10 days (thematic draft) | 6–16 weeks (tables, figures, narrative) |
| Revision & Formatting | 2–4 days | 2–6 weeks (checklist, flow diagram, journal style) |
A Realistic Work Plan You Can Copy
Week 1: Lock The Question
Write a one-line PICO or a tight topic statement. Draft a short list of inclusion and exclusion rules. Create a shared folder with a naming pattern for notes, figures, and tables.
Week 1–2: Build The Search
Pick two to four core databases. Create a master string with synonyms and subject headings. Save runs and export citations with abstracts. Use a de-duplication pass before screening.
Week 2: Screen And Chart
Scan titles and abstracts against the rules. Capture reasons for exclusion in a sheet or screening tool so your text can report what you removed later. Pull PDFs of keeps and tag them by theme.
Week 3: Outline And Figure List
List the main themes and assign sections. Sketch tables early: study characteristics, outcome summary, and gaps. Decide where a conceptual diagram or timeline would help readers.
Week 3–4: Draft And Blend
Draft in passes: headings first, topic sentences next, then evidence and citations. Keep paragraphs short and focused. After you stitch sections together, do a tone pass so it reads like one voice.
Week 4: Polish And Submit
Format references, figures, and tables. Write a clear title, a crisp abstract, and a cover letter that names the gap your piece fills. Run spellcheck, acronym checks, and a final link sweep.
Speed Tips That Keep Quality
- Draft search strings once. Reuse the same core terms across databases and document the tweaks.
- Template your notes. Create a one-page study summary form so coauthors extract the same fields.
- Write in bullets, then convert. Bullets speed drafting; turn them into sentences during the merge.
- Use a figure-first approach. Build the tables and flow early; writing then fills the gaps between visuals.
- Decide authorship roles up front. One lead per section avoids stalls and duplicate edits.
- Book two edit days. Reserve a calendar slot for a cold read and a separate slot for formatting.
When A Rapid Review Makes Sense
Teams pick a streamlined approach when a sponsor sets a hard deadline, the topic is narrow, and decisions cannot wait for a year-long process. The method trims steps while keeping transparency: a focused question, a reduced set of databases, clear limits on years or language, single screening with verification, and a concise narrative of findings. That plan can reach a draft in weeks, then expand later if more depth is needed.
Common Bottlenecks And Fixes
Scope Creep
Fix it by freezing the question and criteria in writing. If new angles appear, log them for a sequel rather than bending the current piece.
Endless Screening
Tighten the string and add subject headings. Add a year limit only if it matches the question. Use a second screener for a small calibration batch, then split the list.
Slow Draft Merge
Adopt a house style at the start: tense, headers, reference format, and figure captions. One person owns the final blend and sends a tracked-changes pass for sign-off.
Reference Wrangling
Pick one manager and one style file. Each coauthor inserts citations from the same library to prevent duplicates and broken fields.
How To Estimate Your Own Time
Start with scope: papers to screen, number of tables, and target word count. Multiply papers by two to three minutes for title and abstract screening, and by five to ten minutes for full-text checks. Add a day for each major figure or table. Add two days for a clean final pass across headings, captions, and references. If you need a reporting checklist, add a day to map items to sections.
Title, Abstract, And Figures: Time You Should Reserve
Titles take longer than many expect. Set aside a half day to try several versions that match the journal’s style and the search terms your readers would use. Write the abstract last so it reflects the structure you delivered. Figures and tables deserve early slots, then late polishing. Budget at least one hour per table and two hours per figure for labels, footnotes, and clarity checks.
Editing Passes That Matter
Plan three: a content pass to check claims against sources, a clarity pass to fix long sentences and vague words, and a style pass for tense, headings, and reference format. Read the paper out loud or use a text-to-speech tool to catch awkward rhythm or missing words. If a senior colleague can spare an hour, ask for a margin pass on structure and claims rather than line edits.
Bottom Line On Timeline
Short narrative pieces finish in one to four weeks when the scope is tight and the team commits time on the calendar. A thorough evidence synthesis needs months; a year or more is common, with many programs citing an eighteen-month arc from protocol to manuscript. Pick your method, size the scope, and plan your sprints. With a clear work plan and a steady cadence, you can hit your date without cutting corners.