Skip to main content

Writing a Protocol

Overview

A protocol is a written plan that specifies, in advance,advance, exactly how you intend to conduct your systematic literature review. It recordsis yournot researchcomplete question,until searchall strategy,seven inclusionsub-sections below have been worked through and exclusion criteria, quality appraisal approach, and synthesis method before any searching begins.recorded. Writing athe protocol is not a bureaucratic overhead;hurdle; it is the mechanism that makes your review transparent, reproducible, and defensible.defensible to examiners, supervisors, and future readers.

The protocol has two functions. First, it forces you to make every methodological decision before you are influenced by seeing results. Second, it creates a timestamped record of those decisions so that any deviation from the plan is visible and requires justification.

Do not begin searching until your protocol is complete and your supervisor has reviewed it.

What a Protocol Contains

The table below lists all required sections. Each is explained in detail in the sub-sections that follow.

SectionWhat it records
TitleWorking title of the review
BackgroundBrief rationale: why this topic, why an SLR, why now
Research questionYour structured question from the previous step, using PICO, SPIDER, or PCC
Eligibility criteriaExplicit inclusion and exclusion rules
Search strategyDatabases, search strings, supplementary methods
Screening processPhases, tools, screeners, conflict resolution
Quality appraisalTool selected and how scores will affect inclusion
Data extractionFields to be collected and who will extract
Synthesis methodNarrative, thematic, or meta-analytic approach
TimelinePlanned dates for each stage
RegistrationPROSPERO or OSF registration number, or a statement of why registration was not pursued
Protocol AmendmentsAny changes made to the protocol after searching begins: the date of each change, the section affected, the original wording, and the reason for the change. This section is blank at submission and completed during the review process. All amendments must be disclosed in the thesis methods chapter.

For a thesis-level SLR, the protocol will typically run two to four pages. A downloadable template covering all sections is available here.

Why a Protocol Matters

The core risk in any literature review is unconscious bias: the tendency to favourfavor studies that confirm what you already expect to find. A pre-registered protocol addresses this directly by committing you to your methods before you have seen the results. Specifically, a protocol:

  • Prevents outcome-driven decisions. Without a protocol, it is easy to quietly shift your inclusion criteria after seeing which studies support your argument. A protocol makes any such deviation visible and requires justification.
  • Supports reproducibility. Another researcher following your protocol should be able to replicate your search and arrive at substantially the same set of included studies.
  • Strengthens your thesis. Examiners and supervisors can evaluate the rigour of your method independently of your findings. A well-written protocol demonstrates systematic thinking.thinking before you have produced a single result.
  • Saves time downstream. Decisions made in the protocol (date ranges, languages, study types) do not have to be renegotiated at each stagesubsequent of the review.stage.

WhatEligibility Criteria

Eligibility criteria are the explicit rules that determine which studies are included in or excluded from your review. They are derived directly from your research question: each element of your PICO, SPIDER, or PCC framework suggests at least one criterion.

Criteria are divided into two types:

  • Inclusion criteria define the characteristics a Protocolstudy Containsmust

    A protocol does not needhave to be long,eligible. butEvery included study must meet all inclusion criteria.

  • Exclusion criteria define characteristics that disqualify a study, even if it mustotherwise beappears complete.relevant. TheExclusion tablecriteria belowoften listsaddress thepractical standardconstraints components(language, andaccess, whatstudy toquality) includerather inthan each.

    topic relevance.

Common Criterion Categories

SectionCategory WhatExample toinclusion includecriterionExample exclusion criterion
TitlePublication date Working title of the review
BackgroundBrief rationale: why this topic, why now
Research questionYour structured question (from Step 1, using PICO, SPIDER, or PCC)
Eligibility criteriaExplicit inclusion and exclusion rules (date range, language, study type, geographic scope, etc.)
Search strategyDatabases to be searched, search strings, date of search
Screening processHow titles/abstracts and full texts will be screened; who is involved
Quality appraisalWhich appraisal tool will be used and how scores will be handled
Data extractionWhat information will be extracted from each included study
Synthesis methodNarrative synthesis, thematic analysis, meta-analysis, etc.
TimelinePlanned dates for each stage

For a thesis-level SLR, your protocol will typically run two to four pages. It is good practice to share a draft with your supervisor before beginning your search.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

  • Writing the protocol after searching. A retrospective protocol defeats its purpose entirely.
  • Being too vague. "Recent articles in English" is not a protocol entry; "peer-reviewed journal articles in English, publishedPublished between January 2015 and December 2025"2025 is.
    • Published
  • before 2015 LockingLanguage Written in English or German Written in any other language Document type Peer-reviewed journal articles and conference papers Editorials, opinion pieces, book reviews, dissertations Study design Empirical studies (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods) Purely conceptual or theoretical papers Geographic scope Studies conducted in EU member states Studies conducted outside Europe Population/context Studies focused on SMEs Studies focused exclusively on large corporations Relevance Studies directly addressing the wrongphenomenon question.of interest Studies mentioning the topic only incidentally

    Why Criteria Must Be Pre-Specified

    Criteria written after you have seen the results of your search are retrospective and therefore biased. If you find yourself wanting to exclude a specific study because it complicates your synthesis, that is a signal to engage with it more carefully, not to rewrite a criterion. Any change to criteria after searching begins is a protocol amendment and must be documented.

    Testing Your Criteria

    Before finalizing your criteria, test them against five to ten records from a preliminary search: a mix of obviously relevant, obviously irrelevant, and borderline papers. If you cannot apply the criteria consistently to this small sample, they need further specification before you proceed to full screening.

    Search Strategy

    Your search strategy records exactly how you will find the literature. It has three components.

    Databases: List every database you will search. For business and management research, the standard set is Business Source Ultimate (EBSCO) and JSTOR. Google Scholar may be used supplementarily for grey literature. The protocolrationale for including each database should recordbe noted briefly (coverage of the finaldiscipline, versionaccess ofto specific journal types, etc.).

    Search strings: Document the complete Boolean search string you will use in each database. Strings are built from the concepts in your research question fromframework, Stepwith 1.synonyms connected by OR and concepts connected by AND. If thestrings questionvary changesbetween afterdatabases registration,due documentto different controlled vocabularies, record each variation. Full guidance on constructing strings is provided in Conducting Your Search.

    Supplementary methods: Document any additional search methods beyond database searching. The most important of these is snowballing, a technique in which you trace citations forward and backward from a confirmed set of relevant papers. Backward snowballing examines the changereference lists of included studies to find earlier relevant work; forward snowballing uses citation databases (Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science) to find later papers that have cited an included study. Snowballing is particularly valuable in management research, where relevant work may be published in practitioner journals or conference proceedings not fully indexed in major databases.

    Screening Process

    The screening process section of your protocol records how you will apply your eligibility criteria to the records returned by your search. It should specify:

    • The two phases of screening (title/abstract, then full text) and yourwhat reasondecisions forare itmade at each phase
    • The tool you will use (e.g. Rayyan or a spreadsheet)
    • Who will screen (solo screening is acceptable at thesis level but must be stated as a protocol amendment.limitation)
    • OmittingWhat you will do with full texts that cannot be retrieved

    Full guidance on conducting screening is provided in Screening the Results.

    Quality Appraisal Approach

    The quality appraisal section of your protocol specifies how you will assess the methodological rigour of included studies. Record:

    • The appraisal tool you will use and why it is appropriate for your study types (CASP, MMAT, or JBI; all are free)
    • Whether studies scoring below a threshold will be excluded, or whether all studies will be retained with quality noted in the synthesis
      • plan.
    • Who Studentswill frequentlyappraise specify(solo appraisal is acceptable at thesis level)

    This decision must be made before appraising any study. Deciding post-hoc to exclude low-quality studies after seeing their searchfindings is a form of bias. Full guidance on quality appraisal is provided in detailAppraise butStudy leaveQuality.

    Data Extraction and Synthesis Method

    Data extraction: Specify the synthesisfields sectionyou blank.will extract from each included study and the format of your extraction form (typically a spreadsheet). At minimum, record: author, year, country, methodology, sample, key findings, theoretical framework, limitations, and quality appraisal rating. A blank copy of your extraction form should be included as a thesis appendix. Full guidance is provided in Extract Data.

    Synthesis method: State whether you will use narrative synthesis, thematic synthesis, or meta-analysis, and briefly justify the choice in relation to your research question and expected study types. Even a one-sentence commitment ("findings will be synthesised narratively using thematic grouping") is sufficient at thisprotocol stage.

Full
guidance

Protocolon Template

synthesis

Aapproaches simpleis Word/LibreOffice template covering all sectionsprovided in theSynthesise tableand above is available hereReport.

Timeline

ThisProvide templateestimated coverscompletion thedates corefor componentseach ofstage. aA systematic review protocoltakes significantly longer than most students anticipate; building in buffer time is essential.

broadlywiththePRISMA-P(Shamseeral.,2015).StudentsregisterprotocolonPROSPEROpublishreviewshouldconsultPRISMA-Ptoensurealladdressed.

StagePlanned completion date
Protocol finalised and issupervisor-approved  consistent
Database 2015searches checklistcompleted  et
Title/abstract intendingscreening tocompleted  their
Full-text orscreening tocompleted  their
Quality theappraisal fullcompleted  checklist
Data itemsextraction arecompleted  
Synthesis and write-up completed 

Protocol Registration (Optional)

Registering your protocol with an external repository creates a timestamped, publicly accessible record of your planned methods. This is optional for most student theses but is increasingly expected in academic publishing and demonstrates a high standard of rigour.

PROSPERO

PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) is, hosted by the University of York's Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. It was originally designed for health research but nowYork, accepts reviews from health, social sciences,science, education, welfare, and business contexts. Registration is free.

free
  • Suitable for: reviews with a clearly defined health, social, or policy-relevant outcome
  • URL: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero
  • Note: registrationand requires an ORCID iD;iD. theNote processthat takesPROSPERO approximatelydoes thirtynot toaccept sixtyscoping minutesreviews; use OSF for those.

    OSF (Open Science Framework)

    The OSF, maintained by the Center for Open Science, accepts protocol registrations for any discipline with no restrictionstopic on topic.restrictions. It is the more flexible option for management, design, or interdisciplinary business research.research, and accepts scoping reviews.

    • Suitable for: any review type, including scoping reviews (which PROSPERO does not accept)
    • URL: osf.io
    • Note: OSF also supports pre-registration of primary research studies, which may be useful for other thesis components

    When registrationRegistration isIs notNot requiredRequired

    Registration is not a formal requirement for most taught or research master's theses at this institution. However, if your supervisor encourages it, or if you intend to submit your review as a journal article, registration via PROSPERO or OSF is strongly advisable.theses. If you do not register, notestate this explicitly in your methods chapter and explaingive whya brief reason (for example, the review is a thesis component rather than a standalone publication). Do not simply omit the topic.

    Amendments to the Protocol

    Any change made to the protocol after searching begins must be recorded as a formal amendment. For each amendment, document:

    • The date of the change
    • Which section was changed and what the original wording was
    • The reason for the change

    Amendments are not a sign of failure; they are a sign of transparency. What is not acceptable is changing methods silently to accommodate inconvenient results. Include the amendments log as an appendix in your thesis.

    Common Mistakes to Avoid

    • Writing the protocol after searching. A retrospective protocol defeats its purpose entirely.
    • Being too vague. "Recent articles in English" is not a criterion; "peer-reviewed journal articles in English or German, published between January 2015 and December 2025" is.
    • Separating the criteria from the protocol. Eligibility criteria are a section of the protocol, not a prior step. Do not finalise them in isolation.
    • Leaving the synthesis section blank. Students frequently specify their search in detail but leave synthesis unaddressed. Commit to a method before you begin.

    • Not getting supervisor sign-off. The protocol review is a checkpoint, not a formality. A supervisor who has approved your protocol cannot later object that your method was inappropriate.

Back to top