How to Organize Your Research Library for a Systematic Review
Systematic reviews turn a normal reference library into chaos fast. You pull papers from multiple databases, end up with duplicates everywhere, juggle screening decisions, and somehow the version you need is always the one you cannot find when you are actually writing.
In this guide, you will learn a simple library structure that works for most reviews, a few cleanup habits that save you hours later, and how to bring a focused review collection into Jenni so your sources stay easy to find and reference while you write.
<CTA title="Organize Your Review Sources in Jenni" description="Import a focused collection so your systematic review sources stay easy to find and reference while you write." buttonLabel="Sync My Library" link="https://app.jenni.ai/register" />
Why systematic reviews make libraries messy
Systematic reviews are a different beast. You are not just saving papers, you are tracking a whole decision trail. If you want a clean baseline for documenting the process, systematic review reporting guidelines like PRISMA help keep screening and reporting consistent.
Duplicates pile up from multiple databases
In a systematic review, you are pulling the same study from different places, so duplicates sneak in even when you feel like you are being careful.
The same paper shows up with slightly different metadata (title casing, author formatting, journal abbreviations)
You import multiple exports over time, and earlier versions never get cleaned out
PDFs get saved separately from citation records, so you end up with double entries that look unrelated
Screening decisions get separated from the source
You screen in one place, store citations in another, and track decisions in a spreadsheet somewhere else. After a week, it gets hard to remember why something was excluded, or whether you already looked at it.
PDF chaos makes it harder to trust your own citations
Quick checklist to spot the usual problems early:
✅ PDFs saved with random filenames instead of the study title or first author
✅ Multiple versions of the same paper (preprint vs published) mixed together
✅ Full text missing, so you keep reopening the same abstract again
✅ Notes stored outside the reference record, so context gets lost
A simple library structure that works for most reviews
Collections that match your review stages
Here is a simple structure you can copy and adjust based on your review:
To screen
Included
Excluded
Background
Methods and reporting
Tagging system that stays consistent
Tags are what keep you sane when the library grows. Keep them simple and use the same pattern from day one.
Population, intervention, outcome
Study type
Screening status
Full-text needed
Quality appraisal status
Naming rule for PDFs and notes
Keep your naming consistent so you can trust what you are opening.
Use one format for filenames (author year short title)
Keep notes tied to the same naming pattern as the PDF
If you save multiple versions, label them clearly (preprint vs published)
<ProTip title="🧠 Quick Note:" description="If you want the simplest setup, start with just two collections: To screen and Included. Expand later once your flow feels stable." />
The cleanup routine that saves hours later
Deduping before you import
A quick dedupe pass is worth it, because duplicates mess up screening and make you second-guess what you already included.
✅ Scan for obvious duplicate titles
✅ Check for the same DOI showing up twice
✅ Merge records where one has better metadata
✅ Keep the most complete PDF version, archive the rest
✅ Do one final spot check on your Included collection
Trim your library to the review scope
Do not import your entire lifetime library just because it is there. A systematic review works best when your library matches the scope of what you are screening and writing right now.
Import only what you are actively screening or writing about
Keep an archive folder outside the main review collection
Keep one source of truth
One maintained review collection beats five half updated ones. When your screening decisions, PDFs, and notes all point back to the same place, your writing phase gets way less painful.
<ProTip title="🧹 Cleanup Tip:" description="Import only the sources you are actively screening or writing about. Smaller collections are easier to scan and easier to reference." />
If you want more ways to bring sources into Jenni beyond library sync, check How to Add Sources to Jenni AI Library: Zotero, Mendeley, BibTeX, RIS, DOI, PDFs
Bring your review collection into Jenni (fast)
Once your review collection is clean, bring it into Jenni, so your sources are ready while you write. You can import from Zotero integration with Jenni AI or Mendeley integration with Jenni AI, depending on where your library currently lives.
Open Library in Jenni.
Click the upload arrow.
Choose Zotero or Mendeley.
Sign in to your account.
Select your review collection.
Upload and verify your sources appear in your Jenni Library.
<ProTip title="📁 Heads Up:" description="Import the collection tied to your current review first. You can always add more folders later once everything looks clean." />
Keep your systematic review library clean from day one
A simple structure, a quick cleanup routine, and a focused import into Jenni goes a long way for systematic reviews. When your sources are organized before you start drafting, it becomes way easier to find what you need, stay consistent, and avoid citation chaos later.
<CTA title="Keep Your Review Sources Clean and Ready" description="Import a focused review collection into Jenni so your sources stay organized while you draft and revise." buttonLabel="Import My Sources" link="https://app.jenni.ai/register" />
Start with one project collection first, the one tied to your current review. Once that looks clean and stable, you can expand the structure, add more collections, and keep scaling without the library turning into a mess again.