Page 48 - SRPSKO DRUŠTVO ISTRAŽIVAČA RAKA

Serbian Association for Cancer Research SDIRSACR

the most relevant studies should be singled out and described in the text and/or in the tables. Tables should contain
parameters relevant to the topic, and studies should be sorted and described accordingly.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria must also be considered (10). After the literature survey, a large number of studies
will not meet the criteria for inclusion and will not be acceptable according to the thematically-based parameters
previously defined by the authors. If exclusion criteria are set properly, it will significantly speed up the process of
omitting ineligible references.
The choice of methodology for review writing is also important. It is always a good option to follow the guidelines
and flow diagrams when writing a systematic review or a meta-analysis. An example of a great guideline for how to
write a systematic review or meta-analysis is the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses
(PRISMA)” which has different flow diagram templates for various review types (11). Some research and academic
institutions have paved the path towards easier article review writing by providing a list of frameworks, guidelines,
and links to resources with valuable information on how to prepare a systematic review or meta-analysis, followed by
a brief description of each article type. In this way, academic and scientific institutions encourage their employees and
members of the broader scientific community to write review articles, thereby increasing and improving their writing
and scientific/research skills and the impact of their research activities.
Crucial steps for review writing and the most frequently used article types are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Crucial steps and directions towards successful review article writing.

The final part of a good review usually describes perspectives and challenges, and proposes ways to overcome the
issue in the scientific field-potential answers to the question from the beginning of the manuscript.
Even the most brilliant scientific thought and idea needs to be put into a frame to be published and easily read. The
recommendation is to target a journal of an adequate scope, even at the beginning, and then to follow the instructions
during manuscript writing, which significantly speeds up the process of manuscript submission and adjustments in
word count requirements.
The entire manuscript should fluently follow the narrative. A good quality and effective review should not be repetitive,
neither inside the manuscript (repetition segments that are paraphrased from the previous thought/s) nor outside-to
represent the redescription of previous articles. If review article writing aims solely to increase researchers’ personal
citation index, then it may lead to the overproduction of low-quality review articles.

Perspectives and challenges in “reviewing” (review writing and review reviewing)
The enhanced need for larger data processing and publishing in science and research has developed the need for
artificial intelligence (AI) based software to assist the entire process. The use of AI-based tools for writing requires
good knowledge about all aspects of scientific writing and publishing. AI-based software, besides the writing, may
help with title shaping, structure of the manuscript, language assistance, paraphrasing, etc. The most important thing
when using these tools is to avoid plagiarism and to leave a personal intellectual mark by the author. Also, if authors
decide to use AI-based tools, the journal’s requirements and statements should be strictly followed and unequivocally
addressed. The greatest challenge in scientific writing and publishing with the assistance of AI may be to estimate the
contribution of the author.
On the other hand, besides the role in manuscript creation, the use of ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, California)
was discussed and observed in the process of article reviewing by Biswas et al. (12). The authors emphasized that use
of ChatGPT may significantly speed up the review process and publication time; avoid bias among report of different

33