Systematic review is a structured, transparent, peer-reviewed process and those considering undertaking a review should first read our 'What is Evidence-Based Conservation?" page and consult the guideline documents listed.

We provide support and guidance for those undertaking reviews, including guidance on the format and structure of reviews and review protocols. Documents submitted to us should be prepared in line with the guideline documents and templates provided below:

• Guidelines for Systematic Review in Conservation and Environmental Management (CEBC)
  
• Review presentation guidelines
• Review protocol presentation guidelines
• Draft systematic review template
• Draft review protocol template

Submitted documents should be accompanied with a completed check list as appropriate:

• Protocol submission check list
• Review submission check list

All potential systematic reviews undergo a period of consultation, both at draft protocol and draft review stage, whereby feedback on draft documents is solicited from stakeholders, academic experts and the user community. All documents submitted to the website undergo a peer review process: please see our peer review policy and document handling procedures for more information.

Thus, the combined systematic review and peer-review process is a stepwise one as follows, culminating in the publication of finalised and completed documents (reviews & protocols) in the Environmental Evidence online library:

1. Submission of a draft protocol to the Collaboration, outlining the subject and conduct of the review. Please also complete and return the protocol submission check list with your protocol.
2. Consultation phase - feedback solicited on draft protocol via our website
3. Comments reviewed and protocol finalised
4. Finalised protocol submitted to the Environmental Evidence library
5. Submission of a draft review with completed review check list.
6. Second consultation phase - comments solicited on draft review via our website & peer review
7. Comments reviewed and review completed
8. Completed review submitted to the Environmental Evidence library