Research design · Demonstration study
From a broad topic to explicit eligibility, traceable selection and a synthesis plan that keeps different questions apart.
The brief
Develop a systematic intervention-review protocol for structured written feedback in postgraduate academic writing. The worked protocol below is a demonstration; the search has not been run.
The challenge
Revision quality, satisfaction and confidence are different outcomes. A convincing plan must define what it intends to compare before searching, and must not conceal missing information or count multiple reports as separate studies.
Working excerpt · Illustrative material
The record of duplicates, exclusions and companion reports is shown below.
| Dimension | Include | Record or resolve |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Postgraduate students revising academic writing. | Separate undergraduate-only samples; resolve mixed samples from available subgroup data. |
| Intervention | Written feedback that links a criterion to an actionable revision. | Record delivery, timing, length and accompanying discussion. |
| Comparator | Usual feedback without the required structured format. | Extract what usual practice actually involved. |
| Design | Randomised and non-randomised comparative intervention studies. | Keep design categories separate in extraction and appraisal. |
| Outcomes | Revision quality, writing performance or self-reported experience. | Do not merge these constructs as one outcome. |
Among postgraduate students revising academic writing, how does structured written feedback compare with usual written feedback in its effects on first-revision quality? Structured feedback requires both a reference to an explicit criterion and an actionable revision instruction. The comparator is ordinary written feedback without that required structure. Record feedback length, timing and accompanying discussion as potential differences between conditions. Randomised and controlled non-randomised designs belong in separate synthesis groups.
Unexecuted retrieval skeleton: (postgraduat* OR doctoral OR master*) AND (feedback OR comment* OR annotat* OR rubric*) AND (writ* OR draft* OR revis*). Translate syntax for the selected database and platform, test sensitivity against known relevant reports, and record dates, limits and export counts. Determine written format and comparator eligibility during screening; requiring their wording in the query could miss relevant records.
Synthetic bookkeeping only—no real records or studies: 420 identified records − 90 duplicates = 330 screened; 330 − 270 title/abstract exclusions = 60 reports sought; 60 − 4 not retrieved = 56 assessed; 56 − 40 full-report exclusions = 16 retained reports representing 14 fictional studies. Two reports are companion reports. The 40 full-report exclusions comprise 17 wrong population, 11 wrong intervention, 8 ineligible design and 4 ineligible comparison.
Fictional extraction rows, not citations: DEMO-A | randomised comparison | first-revision rubric score | assessor masking unclear | dispersion available. DEMO-B | controlled non-randomised comparison | revision quality measured, result unreported | author query required. In a real review, each row would link to an actual source report; no authors, journals or DOIs are invented here.
Group the evidence by design, feedback components, outcome construct and measurement occasion. Do not pool a confidence rating with a writing-quality score under the label improvement. If the planned comparison is not defensible, use an organised evidence table and explain the differences instead of manufacturing a single effect.
Read alongside the reasoning and limitations below. These excerpts are not a complete commissioned deliverable.
Editorial & methodological judgement
The value is in the choices that connect the brief to the result.
Set and justify the population, intervention, comparator and study-design criteria before knowing the findings. The Cochrane reference supports selected planning principles; this educational demonstration is not a Cochrane review.
PRISMA supplies reporting resources, including flow-diagram templates. A neat flow diagram does not establish search quality, valid selection or trustworthy conclusions.
An unclear method or unavailable result becomes a query or limitation. It is not filled in with an assumption that makes the evidence appear stronger.
Review checklist
A possible commissioned handover
The actual deliverable list, format and review stages are agreed in your quote.
These sources explain the approach. They do not report, endorse or validate the fictional example above.
Bring your own brief
Another kind of work
