Researchers today face an overwhelming volume of published literature — over 3 million new scientific papers are added to databases each year. Before diving into a focused systematic review, many research teams need to first understand the landscape: what evidence exists, where the gaps are, and whether a full synthesis is even feasible. That is exactly what a scoping review is designed to do. Scoping review methodology provides a structured, transparent approach to mapping the breadth of available evidence on a topic, making it one of the most valuable tools in a researcher's methodological toolkit.
This guide walks you through every stage of conducting a scoping review — from defining your research question to reporting your findings using the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Whether you are a PhD candidate planning your first evidence synthesis or a principal investigator coordinating a multi-author review, this complete framework will help you execute a rigorous, publishable scoping review.
What is a scoping review?
A scoping review is a type of evidence synthesis that systematically maps the available research on a broad topic. Unlike systematic reviews, which aim to answer a specific clinical or research question by appraising and synthesizing study findings, scoping reviews take a wider lens. Their primary purpose is to identify the nature and extent of existing evidence, clarify key concepts, examine how research has been conducted on a topic, and highlight gaps in the literature.
The methodology was first formalized by Arksey and O'Malley in 2005 and later refined by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI), which published its official scoping review methodology guide in 2015 and updated it in 2020. Today, scoping reviews are recognized as a legitimate and rigorous form of knowledge synthesis across health sciences, social sciences, education, engineering, and beyond.
Common reasons researchers conduct scoping reviews include:
Mapping the breadth and depth of literature on an emerging or interdisciplinary topic
Identifying knowledge gaps to inform future studies or grant proposals
Clarifying definitions and key concepts within a field
Determining whether a full systematic review is warranted
Informing policy decisions by summarizing available evidence across study types
Scoping review vs systematic review: what is the difference?
One of the most frequently asked questions in evidence synthesis is how a scoping review differs from a systematic review. Understanding this distinction is essential before choosing your review methodology.
A systematic review addresses a narrow, focused research question — typically structured using the PICO framework (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome). It includes formal quality appraisal of each included study and synthesizes findings to produce a summary answer, often used to guide clinical decision-making. Systematic reviews generally take 6 to 18 months to complete.
A scoping review addresses a broader, more exploratory research question — typically structured using the PCC mnemonic (Population, Concept, Context). It does not usually include formal quality appraisal of individual studies and focuses instead on mapping the scope, range, and nature of the available evidence.
Both review types require a systematic, transparent search strategy and should follow established reporting guidelines. The key difference lies in scope and purpose — not rigor.
When should you conduct a scoping review?
A scoping review is the right choice when your research goal is exploratory rather than confirmatory. Consider conducting one when:
The topic is broad or emerging and you need to understand what types of evidence are available before narrowing your focus
You want to map the literature to identify key concepts, theories, or methodologies used in a field
You are assessing feasibility for a systematic review and need to determine whether sufficient literature exists
You need to identify knowledge gaps to justify a new research project or funding application
Your question crosses disciplines and you want to explore how a topic has been studied from different methodological perspectives
Scoping reviews are particularly valuable for research teams working on interdisciplinary topics where the evidence base is fragmented across multiple databases, publication types, and disciplinary traditions.
The foundational frameworks: Arksey & O'Malley and JBI
The most widely cited scoping review methodology follows the framework originally proposed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005), which outlines five core stages plus an optional sixth:
Identifying the research question
Identifying relevant studies
Study selection
Charting the data
Collating, summarizing, and reporting the results
(Optional) Consultation with stakeholders
The JBI refined and expanded this framework in its Manual for Evidence Synthesis, adding more detailed guidance on protocol development, search strategy documentation, dual screening, and reporting standards. JBI methodology is now considered the gold standard for scoping review conduct and is required or recommended by many journals and academic institutions.
Together with the PRISMA-ScR reporting checklist — published in 2018 with 20 essential and 2 optional reporting items — these frameworks give researchers a clear, replicable methodology for planning, conducting, and publishing high-quality scoping reviews.
Step-by-step scoping review methodology
Step 1: define your research question
Every scoping review begins with a well-defined research question. While systematic reviews use the PICO framework, scoping reviews use the PCC mnemonic:
Population: Who or what is being studied?
Concept: What is the key concept, topic, or phenomenon being explored?
Context: What is the setting, discipline, geographic scope, or timeframe?
For example: "What is the extent and nature of research on AI-assisted reference management tools used by academic research teams in higher education settings?"
A question that is too broad will produce thousands of results that are impossible to screen within a realistic timeline. A question that is too narrow may miss important evidence. Conducting a preliminary search — scanning a few databases and recent reviews — helps calibrate the scope before committing to a full protocol.
Tip: Consult a research librarian early. Librarians can help you assess whether a scoping review is the right approach, whether sufficient literature exists, and how to structure your search terms effectively.
Step 2: develop and register the protocol
A scoping review protocol documents your research question, objectives, inclusion and exclusion criteria, planned search strategy, data extraction categories, and team roles — all defined before the review begins. Developing a protocol reduces bias, ensures methodological transparency, and keeps multi-reviewer teams aligned.
You can register your protocol on platforms such as the Open Science Framework (OSF) or include it as a supplementary file with your published review. Some journals now require protocol registration for scoping review submissions.
Your protocol should include:
Research question and objectives
Eligibility criteria (source types, date range, languages, study designs to include or exclude)
Databases and supplementary sources to be searched
The planned search strategy (keywords, controlled vocabulary, Boolean operators)
Screening procedures (number of independent reviewers, conflict resolution process)
Data extraction categories and form design
A plan for presenting and synthesizing results
Step 3: identify relevant sources
The search strategy is the backbone of any evidence synthesis. For a scoping review, you need a comprehensive, well-documented search across multiple databases and supplementary sources.
Database selection: Search at least three databases, including one multidisciplinary database (such as Scopus or Web of Science) and discipline-specific databases relevant to your topic (such as PubMed for biomedical research, PsycINFO for psychology, ERIC for education, or IEEE Xplore for engineering).
Search terms: Use a combination of free-text keywords and controlled vocabulary (such as MeSH terms or database-specific subject headings). Build your search strategy with Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT) and test it iteratively to balance sensitivity and precision.
Supplementary searching: Beyond databases, consider:
Hand-searching key journals in your field
Scanning reference lists and bibliographies of included studies
Searching gray literature sources (conference proceedings, theses, government reports, preprints)
Consulting subject matter experts for additional references
Document every search in detail — the database searched, the date, the exact search string, and the number of results retrieved. This level of documentation is required by PRISMA-ScR and is essential for reproducibility.
Managing hundreds or thousands of references during the search phase is one of the most time-consuming parts of any scoping review. Research teams that use a centralized platform for organizing, tagging, and deduplicating sources save significant time and reduce errors. ScholarDock, a research project and reference management platform, allows teams to import references from multiple databases into one shared library, automatically deduplicate entries, and tag sources by screening status — giving every team member a single, up-to-date view of the search results.
Step 4: select sources of evidence
Source selection follows a two-stage screening process:
Title and abstract screening: Review each retrieved record against your predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. At least two independent reviewers should screen records to reduce selection bias. Disagreements should be resolved through discussion or by involving a third reviewer.
Full-text screening: Retrieve and review the full text of all sources that passed title and abstract screening. Apply the same eligibility criteria and document reasons for exclusion at this stage.
Track your screening decisions using a PRISMA flow diagram, which visually represents the number of records identified, duplicates removed, records screened, full texts assessed for eligibility, and sources included in the final review. This diagram is a required element of PRISMA-ScR reporting.
Tip: Establish clear, testable inclusion criteria before screening begins. Vague criteria — such as "relevant to the topic" — lead to inconsistent decisions and reviewer disagreements. Run a pilot screening session with your team using a small batch of records to calibrate and refine your criteria before starting full screening.
Step 5: chart the data
Data charting (also called data extraction) involves systematically extracting key information from each included source into a standardized form. This is the scoping review equivalent of data extraction in a systematic review, but it tends to be more descriptive than analytical.
Create a standardized extraction form that captures:
Author(s), year of publication, country, and source type
Study design or methodology
Population, participants, or sample characteristics
Key concepts, definitions, or variables studied
Main findings, themes, or conclusions
Any other categories specific to your research question
Pilot the extraction form with a small subset of included sources and refine the categories as needed. At least two reviewers should independently extract data, with disagreements resolved through discussion or a third reviewer.
For scoping reviews with 100 or more included sources — which a 2024 commentary in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology defines as "large scoping reviews" — keeping extraction organized is critical. ScholarDock's collaborative workspaces let multiple reviewers annotate, extract, and tag data within the same connected environment, eliminating the fragmentation that comes from working across disconnected spreadsheets, PDFs, and shared drives.
Step 6: collate, summarize, and report results
The final analytical stage involves collating extracted data and presenting it in a meaningful, structured way. Scoping reviews typically combine:
Descriptive numerical summary: Tables or charts showing the distribution of included sources by publication year, country, study design, population, or methodology
Thematic analysis: A narrative synthesis organized around key themes, concepts, or categories that emerged from the extracted data
Evidence maps: Visual representations of where evidence concentrates and where gaps remain — increasingly expected by journals alongside the PRISMA flow diagram
This stage is where your scoping review delivers its core value. Unlike a systematic review, you are not producing a single summary answer. Instead, you are mapping the landscape — highlighting what is well-studied, what is emerging, what methodologies dominate, and what remains unexplored.
Present your results clearly using well-labeled tables, charts, and diagrams. Avoid overstating conclusions or making clinical recommendations — scoping reviews identify and describe evidence rather than evaluate its quality.
Step 7 (optional): consult stakeholders
Arksey and O'Malley's original framework includes an optional consultation stage where researchers share preliminary findings with stakeholders — clinicians, policymakers, patients, or subject matter experts — to validate results and surface additional perspectives or sources.
While optional, stakeholder consultation strengthens the real-world relevance and applicability of your findings. It can also reveal practical implications that the published literature alone may not capture, making your review more useful to decision-makers and funders.
Reporting your scoping review with the PRISMA-ScR checklist
The PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) was published in 2018 by a 24-member expert panel and provides a standardized reporting framework for scoping reviews. The checklist includes 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items, covering everything from the title and abstract through to limitations and funding sources.
Following PRISMA-ScR is required or strongly recommended by most journals that accept scoping reviews. Adhering to it significantly increases the likelihood of publication and ensures your review is transparent, replicable, and useful to other researchers.
Key PRISMA-ScR items that researchers commonly overlook:
Providing the full electronic search strategy for at least one database (not just a summary of search terms)
Documenting specific reasons for excluding sources at the full-text screening stage
Describing any deviations from the registered protocol and explaining why they occurred
Discussing the limitations of the scoping review process itself — not just the limitations of the included sources
Common scoping review mistakes and how to avoid them
Even experienced researchers encounter challenges during scoping reviews. According to the JBI scoping review methodology group, these are among the most frequent pitfalls:
1. Defining the question too broadly. An overly broad question can produce thousands of results that overwhelm your screening capacity. Use the PCC framework and conduct a preliminary search to calibrate scope before finalizing the protocol.
2. Inadequate search strategy. Searching only one or two databases, omitting gray literature, or failing to use controlled vocabulary produces an incomplete evidence map. Work with a research librarian to develop and peer-review your search strategy before executing it.
3. Inconsistent screening decisions. Without clear eligibility criteria and reviewer calibration, screening decisions become subjective and unreliable. Pilot your criteria with a sample of records and hold calibration sessions with your team before starting full screening.
4. Treating a scoping review like a systematic review. Scoping reviews do not typically include formal quality appraisal and should not produce clinical recommendations. Overstating conclusions based on a scoping review undermines its credibility and purpose.
5. Poor data management. Scoping reviews generate large volumes of references, PDFs, extraction forms, and screening logs. Without a centralized system, critical data gets buried in email threads, local folders, and disconnected tools. Using a connected research workspace like ScholarDock — where references, project files, annotations, and team decisions live in one place — prevents the organizational chaos that derails many multi-reviewer evidence synthesis projects.
How ScholarDock supports your scoping review workflow
Conducting a rigorous scoping review requires managing hundreds of sources, coordinating multiple reviewers, tracking screening decisions, and organizing extracted data — all while adhering to strict methodological guidelines. Most research teams piece together a fragmented workflow across a reference manager, a shared spreadsheet, a cloud drive, and a project tracker. ScholarDock, a research project and reference management platform, brings the entire scoping review workflow into one connected workspace.
Centralized reference library. Import sources from multiple databases, automatically deduplicate, and maintain one shared, searchable collection for your entire review team.
Structured project management. Track your scoping review as a structured project with clear stages, assigned tasks, and deadlines — from protocol development through manuscript submission.
Collaborative screening and extraction. Multiple reviewers can tag, annotate, and categorize sources within the same workspace, with full visibility into screening progress and reviewer assignments.
Knowledge structuring. Connect findings across sources, build thematic maps, and maintain a living overview of your evidence landscape as data extraction progresses.
AI-powered research tools. Summarize included papers faster, extract key findings automatically, and discover related sources you may have missed during your initial search — with over 51% of researchers now using AI tools for literature review tasks.
Instead of juggling disconnected tools, ScholarDock gives research teams a single environment designed for exactly the kind of structured, collaborative work that scoping reviews demand.
Start your scoping review with confidence
A well-conducted scoping review can shape the direction of an entire research program — revealing where evidence is strong, where it is emerging, and where critical gaps remain. By following the Arksey and O'Malley framework, adhering to JBI methodology guidelines, and reporting with PRISMA-ScR, you give your review the rigor and transparency it needs to be published, cited, and built upon.
The methodology is clear. The frameworks are established. What makes the difference between a smooth review and a chaotic one is execution — and execution depends on how well your team organizes its sources, coordinates its reviewers, and structures its growing knowledge.
If your research team is ready to conduct a scoping review without the chaos of scattered PDFs, disconnected spreadsheets, and siloed collaborators, ScholarDock brings your entire review workflow — sources, screening, extraction, and reporting — into one connected workspace. Start organizing your next scoping review with ScholarDock today.