Use a clear structure, match the journal’s style, and use the right checklist so your review reads cleanly and passes editorial checks.
Format isn’t window dressing. It shapes how editors and readers move through your argument, spot the evidence, and judge the care behind the work. The steps below give you a clean layout, the right section order, and the small touches that make a review easy to scan and cite.
Formatting a review paper: step-by-step
Pick the target journal first
Open the journal’s “Instructions for Authors” before you write. Align page order, word counts, heading levels, reference style, and figure specs from the start. Writing to the house style saves a full rewrite. Keep a short note with hard limits: abstract words, reference count, table cap, and image rules.
Set up the document
Use standard page size with 1-inch margins. Set line spacing to 1.5–2.0 for review drafts. Choose a legible font (12-pt Times New Roman, 11-pt Calibri, or 11-pt Arial are safe picks). Insert page numbers. Indent the first line of each paragraph by 0.5 in. Keep left alignment; avoid full justification that creates rivers of white. For a clean baseline on page layout, see the official APA paper format.
Title page and metadata
Include the full title, a short title if asked, author names, affiliations, and ORCID iDs. Add the corresponding author’s email, total word count, and the count of tables and figures. Supply 3–6 keywords that match index terms in your field. If the review has a registered protocol (e.g., PROSPERO), place the registration number on the title page or at the top of Methods.
Core sections and what to write
Use this master checklist as your base, then trim to match the journal. Place the first table early so editors can scan the build at a glance.
| Section | Purpose | What to include |
|---|---|---|
| Abstract | Give the snapshot. | Structured headings for systematic work; single paragraph for narrative reviews; 3–6 keywords. |
| Introduction | Set the stage. | Why the topic matters now, scope, and a clear review question or aim. |
| Methods | Show the process. | Databases, dates, full search strings, eligibility criteria, screening steps, extraction plan, synthesis plan. |
| Results / Synthesis | Report findings. | Study flow, study features, themes or effect sizes, figures and summary tables. |
| Quality / Bias | Rate evidence. | Risk-of-bias tools, certainty ratings, sensitivity checks. |
| Discussion | Make sense. | What the body of evidence says, where it aligns, where it conflicts, and plausible reasons. |
| Limitations | Set guardrails. | Data gaps, method limits, and how these shape claims. |
| Conclusion | Leave the takeaway. | One-paragraph answer to the review question and next steps for readers. |
| References | Credit sources. | Exact match to the target style; use a manager to keep it tidy. |
| Tables / Figures | Show patterns. | Numbered captions, notes, units; place per journal rules. |
| Supplement | Park detail. | Search strings, extra analyses, full data extraction forms. |
| Declarations | Stay transparent. | Funding, conflicts, author roles, data access, ethics notes. |
Abstract and keywords
Editors skim the abstract first. Use a structured layout when the journal or review type calls for it. A common pattern is Background, Methods, Results, and Conclusion. Hit the word limit. Pick keywords that match the terms readers use in databases, not just lab slang.
Methods that stand up
Systematic work needs a clear play-by-play with a flow diagram. The PRISMA 2020 statement lists every item readers expect to see. State the dates searched, all databases, any language limits, and full search strings. Note who screened records, how disputes were resolved, and which tools handled bias ratings and extraction. Narrative and scoping reviews still need a traceable path: where you looked, how you picked sources, and why.
Results and synthesis
Start with the record flow, then the study set. Summarize designs, sample sizes, settings, timelines, and core measures. Group by theme, method, population, or outcome. If you ran a meta-analysis, report the model, effect size metric, heterogeneity, and any subgroup or sensitivity checks. Use figures and cross-tab tables to show patterns the prose can’t carry alone.
Discussion, limits, and close
Bring themes together and align them with the review aim. Point out where claims are strong, where they rest on sparse data, and what explains differences across studies. Close with a short paragraph that states the main message and a practical next move for researchers or practitioners.
Format for a review paper: journal-ready layout
Headings that guide the reader
Use H2 for main sections, H3 or H4 for sub-sections. Keep parallel wording so a skim shows the logic. Avoid one-sentence sub-sections that break flow. Numbered headings are fine when the journal uses them. Keep heading length short; the reader should guess the content from the line alone.
Tables and figures that carry weight
Each table needs a sentence in the text that cues it. Put crisp titles on tables; move methods, abbreviations, and notes into table footnotes. Figures need axes labels, units, and legends that stand alone. If the journal wants separate files, still place callouts in the text. Keep color choices readable in grayscale for print.
Citations and reference styles
Author-date styles (e.g., APA) use in-text cites like “Smith & Lee, 2022.” Numbered styles (AMA, Vancouver, IEEE) use bracketed numbers like “[12].” Match punctuation, spacing, capitalization, and DOI formats to the guide. Use consistent sentence case or title case per the style. When in doubt, check sample articles in the same journal and follow them line for line.
Bias-free language and clear sentences
Use people-first terms where relevant, write with plain verbs, and avoid loaded labels. Keep sentences tight. Vary sentence openings and avoid stacks of nouns. Read the draft aloud; clunky lines surface fast that way. Replace jargon where a common term does the job without loss.
Transparency statements
Many journals follow the ICMJE recommendations. Add funding, conflicts, data or code access, and author contributions. If you used automation, state where and how. If you had a protocol, name the registry and number.
Write each section with purpose
Title and running head
Keep the title crisp and searchable. Lead with the main concept and the review type, e.g., “Remote Work Burnout: A Systematic Review.” A running head, if used, is a short form of the title. Avoid acronyms unless the term is standard across the field.
Introduction
Start broad, then narrow. Lay out the problem, the scope, and the aim in a few tight paragraphs. End with the exact question the review answers. Promise only what the paper delivers. Keep claims grounded in sources you cite in the next sections.
Methods
Spell out inclusion and exclusion criteria. Name all databases and the date of the last search. Mention language rules and gray literature sources. Note how you resolved screening disputes. Describe any tools used for bias ratings and extraction. If you updated an older review, mark what changed in scope and dates.
Results
Tell the story of the included studies. Report counts, core features, and trends. Use a table to summarize study traits and a figure to show patterns. Keep the tone even; avoid grading study authors in the prose. Let your bias ratings table do that job.
Discussion
Compare clusters of findings and offer plausible reasons for differences. Tie back to the gap raised in the Introduction. Mark where claims rest on limited data and where they look firmer across designs and settings. Flag practice or policy angles only when the evidence base supports them.
Conclusion
Offer one clear message and one action others can take. Keep it short. Do not add new data or citations here. The reader should leave with a single line they could repeat to a colleague.
Polish the look and feel
Paragraphs and line length
Stick to 4–6 lines per paragraph in the main text. Shorter lines help eyes track on screens and print. Avoid walls of text and one-line paragraphs. Use lists for short sequences to cut clutter without losing meaning.
Numbers, units, and style quirks
Use SI units unless the journal says otherwise. Add leading zeros to decimals under one. Keep decimal places consistent within a table or figure. Use the same tense within a section. Keep capitalization rules steady across headings and captions.
Acronyms and abbreviations
Define each term at first use, then keep usage consistent. Avoid acronyms in titles and headings unless they are standard and clearer than the full phrase. Make a short list of abbreviations in the supplement when many appear.
Permissions and copyright
When you reuse a figure or a large table, get permission early. Follow the credit line format from the rights holder. Store proof of permission with your submission files. Many journals ask for it during checks.
Style guides and when to use them
Pick a style guide that matches your field and the journal. Hit the non-negotiables every time.
| Style guide | Best fit | Hallmark rules |
|---|---|---|
| APA | Psychology, social sciences, education | Author-date cites, bias-free wording, clear headings; baseline page layout on the APA site. |
| AMA / Vancouver | Medicine, life sciences | Numbered cites, journal abbreviations, structured abstracts, strict disclosure lines. |
| IEEE | Engineering, computer science | Bracketed numbers, figure callouts, math layout rules; strong focus on units and symbols. |
Pre-submission checklist
Run these checks before you click submit. They prevent instant desk rejections and back-and-forth emails.
- Page order matches the journal template from title page to declarations.
- Abstract fits the word cap and uses the right structure for the review type.
- Title names the main concept and the review type without hype words.
- Headings follow a clean hierarchy with no jumps in levels.
- Every table and figure is cited in the text and labeled correctly.
- Flow diagram included when the review is systematic.
- References are complete, styled, and validated with a manager.
- File names are short, clear, and match figure and table numbers.
- All statements are present: funding, conflicts, author roles, and data access.
- Cover letter states fit with the journal and the single-line takeaway.
Smart time-savers
Use a reference manager
Zotero, EndNote, or Mendeley can switch styles in seconds. Build a shared library for coauthors. De-duplicate records before final export. Lock your reference list before copy edits to avoid shifting numbers in numbered styles.
Create reusable templates
Save a shell with title page fields, heading styles, caption formats, and the full set of declarations. Clone it for each project so spacing, fonts, and numbering stay uniform. Keep journal-specific tweaks as separate templates.
Automate repetitive checks
Use word processor styles for headings, lists, captions, and quotes. Set “keep with next” for headings to avoid orphan lines. Turn on automatic figure and table numbering. Use cross-references so callouts update when items move.
When your review is systematic
State a protocol, even on a tight timeline. Share full search strings in an appendix so others can repeat the work. Add a flow diagram and a table of included studies with core traits: design, sample, setting, exposure or intervention, and outcomes. The PRISMA 2020 statement and its flow chart set the bar for clarity on what you did and found.
When your review is narrative or scoping
Be explicit about scope and source selection. Explain how you grouped studies and why that grouping helps readers. A one-page concept map or timeline in the supplement can show how ideas or methods evolved across years and fields.
Accessibility touches that help every reader
Add alt text for all figures on submission platforms that support it. Keep color contrast strong and avoid color-only cues in charts. Use descriptive link text in the supplement. Write table notes so screen readers can decode the structure.
Submission package extras that editors like
Many journals ask for a cover letter, highlights, and a graphical abstract. The cover letter should name the gap, the main answer, and the fit with the journal’s scope. Highlights list three bullet points in plain words. A graphical abstract can be a simple flow with the review question, sources, and the one-line answer.
Common mistakes and quick fixes
- Vague scope: Add a one-sentence aim at the end of the Introduction.
- Messy Methods: Move every search and screening detail into one section and a supplement table.
- Tables without cues: Add a callout line before each table and figure.
- Heading jumps: Don’t skip from H2 to H4. Keep levels in order.
- Long paragraphs: Split at natural turns; aim for 4–6 lines.
- Style drift: Pick one guide and follow it across the paper.
- Loose claims: Link every claim to a source and keep the tone even.
- Missing statements: Add funding, conflicts, author roles, and data access notes.
- Unclear file names: Use “Figure_1_forest_plot.png” not “image_final2.png”.
- Thin conclusion: State one message and one action the reader can take.
Final proofread that matters
Export a PDF and read on paper. Check page breaks, widow lines, and orphan headings. Verify cross-references and figure callouts. Ask a colleague to skim only headings, tables, and figures; if the story is clear from those, the format is doing its job. Submit with confidence.