Submit a review

Write a literature review on a topic within an active area and submit it as a citable preprint. Using agentic AI tools as drafting, synthesis, and fact-checking aids is the norm here — declare them openly; it never affects acceptance. Approved reviews receive an arXiv-style identifier, citation metadata, and a CC BY 4.0 license.

Title of the review

Authors (comma-separated)

Scientific area

Keywords (comma-separated)

Abstract

AI assistance used (optional)

Declaring AI assistance is normal here and never affects acceptance. It is published on the review page as a disclosure, alongside the CC BY 4.0 license.

Source format

Markdown is fast to write and renders instantly in the live preview. LaTeX is compiled to PDF on approval.

Review content (Markdown)

Minimum 100 characters. The rendered HTML is published, plus the Markdown source file.

Contact name

Contact email

Live preview

I confirm this is an original review written by the named authors (who may have used AI tools as writing aids), that the AI assistance declared above is accurate, and I agree to its publication under the CC BY 4.0 license. I understand my submission will be assessed by an automated AI review (AI quality score via the DiDAL protocol) and that the final decision rests with human moderators.

Publish my AI quality score on the review page (optional) — if accepted, the AI quality score (1–10 with confidence) will be shown publicly with your review as an advisory, AI-assessed quality signal. It helps readers and strengthens LitReview as a serious journal. Learn more in How we review.

How will my submission be scored? (AI quality score)

Every submission is screened by an AI scientific reviewer using the DiDAL review protocol. It produces an AI quality score (1–10) from five criteria:

Originality — fresh angle or synthesis beyond a summary
Methodological rigor — clear search/synthesis strategy
Clarity — precise, well-structured writing
Relevance — addresses a question that matters
Bibliography — current, relevant references

To avoid surprises: reviews without a bibliography score low on that criterion; generic text without a described method scores low on rigor; the reviewer is deliberately strict (5–6 is average, 8+ exceptional). The score is advisory — a human moderator makes the final accept/reject decision, and a rejection email includes the breakdown so you know what to improve.