Key points at a glance
- Eligibility criteria turn your question into assessable selection decisions.
- Define them before the main screening and pilot them on a small set.
- Record full-text exclusions and later changes to the rules.
Which publications belong in your review?
Inclusion and exclusion criteria determine which publications can answer your research question. They may cover participants, subject, context, design, publication type or dates. Write them so that you can make a justified decision about an actual paper.
“Relevant studies” is not an operational criterion. “Empirical studies of written peer feedback in undergraduate programmes” is more specific. Explain each restriction in substantive or practical terms. Easy full-text access does not make a publication more scientifically suitable than a harder-to-obtain source.
An original example of usable rules
Suppose your review examines experiences of written peer feedback. You include studies in which students provide written comments on one another’s assessed work. Teacher-only feedback is outside scope. For mixed participant groups, relevant findings must be identifiable separately.
Define borderline cases too. Does feedback in a chat count? What happens when written and spoken feedback are combined? Resolve these questions in relation to your research aim. Add examples of inclusion and exclusion to a short screening guide before the main review.
Screen titles, abstracts and full texts in stages
Remove duplicate records first. Then inspect titles and abstracts for apparent eligibility. Where essential information is missing, “unclear — assess full text” is often more accurate than immediate exclusion. A short abstract can describe a suitable study poorly.
Apply the same rules at full-text assessment and record a specific primary reason for each excluded report. Keep unavailable full texts separate from ineligible publications. Failure to obtain a report is a different limitation from finding that it does not meet your criteria.
Pilot the procedure on a small, varied selection. If you clarify a rule, reassess records already screened under its earlier wording. Clarification should resolve ambiguity, not selectively retain findings that support your preferred conclusion.
Report the selection process transparently
Maintain a record with a publication identifier, screening stage, decision and exclusion reason. Link multiple reports from the same study rather than silently counting them as independent investigations. State who screened the records and how uncertain cases were resolved.
PRISMA flow diagrams distinguish stages from identification to inclusion and can support reporting for suitable review designs. Derive the counts from your actual records. A visually coherent diagram cannot replace a consistent screening log.
Final submission context
Formal details can feel like a separate writing task, but they matter just as much for a printed submission. Anything missing, misplaced or inconsistently formatted in the document will also appear in the bound copy.
Use this guide together with your cover page, table of contents, page numbers, source notes and appendices. Prepare the final PDF for printing and binding only after the complete file has been checked.
Practical check before PDF export
- Do headings, chapter structure and page numbers match?
- Are sources, figures and tables included completely?
- Are required elements such as declarations, appendices or the cover page included where required?
- Did you open and check the final PDF after exporting it?
Checklist
- Derive criteria from the research question.
- Explain borderline cases with examples.
- Assess unclear abstracts at full-text stage.
- Give specific full-text exclusion reasons.
- Record rule changes and reassess affected records.
Common mistakes
- Setting selection rules only after seeing all results.
- Counting unavailable reports as substantively ineligible.
- Treating several reports of one study as independent evidence.
Print and bind your finished thesis
Once you have checked the content and final PDF, configure the printed copies to match your submission requirements.
Configure printing and bindingRelated content
Explore related guidance on thesis structure, sources, formatting and final submission.
Frequently asked questions
Can I restrict the review to English and German?
A language restriction may be necessary in a student project. Justify it as a limitation and explain that relevant research may be missed. Language is not a general indicator of study quality.
Can eligibility criteria change later?
Justified changes are possible. Record when and why the rule changed, assess its consequences and apply it consistently to previously screened publications as well.
Must I explain every abstract exclusion separately?
Requirements depend on the review standard. Clear internal records are helpful regardless. Specific reasons are particularly important for full-text exclusions because those reports reached closer assessment.