While finalizing the review and preparing for publication, your team should also make a plan for archiving and sharing additional documentation (e.g., supplemental material) necessary for others to evaluate or replicate your work.
Now that you've done all this work, it's important that others (especially your intended audience) can find and use it! This will be taken care of in part by publishing in a journal (or other space as appropriate). But, it is also important to share supplemental material such as review protocol, search strategies, data, etc. where you can provide much more detail, increasing the likelihood of replicability.
"The Systematic Review Data Repository (SRDR) is a powerful and easy-to-use tool for the extraction and management of data for systematic review or meta-analysis. It is also an open and searchable archive of systematic reviews and their data."
"The Campbell Collaboration Wikipedia Project aims to promote the dissemination, accessibility, and impact of Campbell reviews. Campbell evidence syntheses are published in the Campbell Systematic Reviews journal and are fully open access."
"Cochrane has a commitment to producing and sharing high quality health evidence to as broad an audience as possible. As a way of achieving this, Cochrane has a partnership with Wikipedia with a view to improving the evidence shared in articles, using quality, reliable secondary sources such as recent Cochrane Systematic Reviews to help improve the reliability of freely available health information."
For archiving your search strategies. Developed by CABI for life science disciplines, but open to submissions from all disciplines.
VT's own data repository. Assistance is available to set up your dataset record. A DOI will be assigned to your record for future referencing. Your records will be preserved and accessible by you and others.
This repository hosts and preserves the scholarly work of Virginia Tech faculty, students, and staff. Materials include: journal articles, books, theses, dissertations, conference papers, slide presentations, technical reports, working papers, administrative documents, videos, images, and more. Assistance is available at email@example.com
If you are having trouble matching your review to a more focused repository, these general purpose repositories are a good place to look! If you're already familiar with one of these tools, it would be easiest to start there. You may also choose a repository based on what is commonly used in your field or discipline.
"...a repository where users can make all of their research outputs available in a citable, shareable and discoverable manner"
The Open Science Framework is a free, open source project management platform that helps researchers manage and share their research. Learn more about OSF at VT!
Identify the report as a protocol of a systematic review... use informative titles that make key information easily accessible to reader (item 1a). If the protocol is for an update of a previous systematic review, identify as such...[updates] warrant an independent publication, the title of which should reflect its purpose (item 1b).
If registered, provide the name of the registry (such as PROSPERO) and registration number.
If the protocol represents an amendment of a previously completed or published protocol, identify as such and list changes; otherwise, state plan for documenting important protocol amendments.