W5A. Results Section Peer-Review, Risk of Bias Assessment

Author

Georgy Gelvanovsky

Published

March 19, 2026

1. Summary

1.1 Reviewing the Results Section

The Results section of a systematic literature review is the section in which you report what the literature found in response to your research question. Before submitting or finalizing this section, it is essential to evaluate it critically—both through self-review and through peer review.

When evaluating a Results section, focus on three core questions:

  1. What is the goal of the Results section? Does it clearly answer the research question? Does it include all sources that were selected during the search process?
  2. Is the section divided into subsections? If subsections are used, are they justified? Do they reflect a logical thematic or structural division of the material?
  3. How are sources ordered? Is the ordering consistent with a stated strategy (chronological, distant-to-close, comparative)?

During peer review, the feedback should be both oral (explaining the overall logic) and written (commenting on language and style). The combination of both allows for a more complete improvement of the text.

1.2 Risk of Bias

Bias in research refers to any systematic error or distortion in a study’s design, conduct, or reporting that can lead to conclusions that do not accurately reflect reality. In a systematic literature review, you are not just reporting what each study found—you are also responsible for assessing how much those findings can be trusted.

Risk of Bias (ROB) assessment is the process of evaluating the extent to which the bias present in your included sources could distort the conclusions of your literature review as a whole. It is a mandatory component of a rigorous SLR.

1.3 What to Assess in a ROB Evaluation

When assessing each included source for bias, examine the following dimensions:

  • Sample size: Is the sample large enough to draw reliable conclusions? A study with 10 participants is more vulnerable to random variation than one with 1,000.
  • Population choice: Is the study population representative of the broader group the study claims to describe? If a study of “global” attitudes surveyed only U.S. college students, the generalizability is questionable.
  • Method transparency and replicability: Is the methodology described in enough detail that another researcher could repeat it? Non-replicable methods are a significant credibility concern.
  • Intransparent procedure: If key steps in the data collection or analysis are not described, readers cannot assess the validity of the results.
  • Conflicts of interest: Is there any indication that the source of funding or the researchers’ affiliations might have influenced the results?

You are drawing on skills developed in your Research Review Essay (RRE) experience—the same critical thinking applied there to evaluating a single paper now applies to evaluating each paper in your corpus.

1.4 Structure of the ROB Assessment

The ROB assessment in a systematic literature review consists of two parts:

1.4.1 The ROB Table

Create a table in which you assess every source included in your review. For each source, describe any bias detected. If no critical bias is found, state that explicitly.

Example ROB table format:

Source Bias Description
[1] Small sample (n = 12); findings may not generalize
[2] Non-replicable method description; procedure cannot be reproduced
[3] No critical bias identified

The table provides a quick, scannable overview for the reader.

1.4.2 The ROB Assessment Text

Follow the table with a brief paragraph that synthesizes the overall risk of bias across all included sources. This text moves from the individual source level (the table) to the aggregate level (the review as a whole).

Example:

“The risk-of-bias assessment reveals two studies with risk of bias. These biases are associated with insufficient replicability of methods. One study bears no critical risks (Table I).”

The concluding text should:

  • State how many sources showed bias and of what type
  • Assess the cumulative impact: does the bias in individual sources undermine the overall conclusions of the review?
  • Reference the table
1.5 Placement of ROB in Your Paper

The ROB assessment is typically placed at the end of the Results section. Its exact position depends on the structure of your Results:

  • If you have subsections in Results: ROB is a separate final subsection (e.g., “3.4 Risk of Bias Assessment”).
  • If you do not use subsections: ROB is a final paragraph in the Results section, immediately followed by the table.