VedaNadhi

Scholarly
Publishing

Vedanadhi's Scholarly Publishing initiative focuses on systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and other forms of evidence synthesis. The programme supports the publication of research monographs and technical reports that communicate transparent methods, critical appraisal, and evidence-based findings.

Manuscripts undergo editorial assessment and, where applicable, independent external peer review in accordance with the Vedanadhi’s Publishing Policies. For publications subject to the full external peer-review process, acceptance requires documented final recommendations to accept from at least two independent external reviewers, satisfactory resolution of substantive concerns, and compliance with applicable editorial and research-integrity requirements.

Reporting guidelines, including relevant EQUATOR Network guidance such as PRISMA, are applied where appropriate to the design and type of work. Use of a reporting guideline does not itself establish methodological quality or guarantee acceptance.

Publishing Model and Submissions

Vedanadhi’s Scholarly Publishing programme currently operates on a selective, commissioning- and invitation-based basis. Works are considered at the publisher’s discretion according to their scholarly merit, methodological quality, relevance to the programme, and suitability for publication.

The programme does not currently accept unrestricted public submissions. Works considered for publication are subject to editorial assessment and, where applicable, independent external peer review in accordance with Vedanadhi’s Publishing Policies. A commission or invitation does not guarantee acceptance or publication.

Works published through this programme are listed in the Scholarly Publications section below. These publications are distinct from research and development activities and other works associated with Vedanadhi that are documented through separate channels.

Editorial Standards and Peer Review

Manuscripts covered by Vedanadhi's full peer-review model are assessed by at least two independent external reviewers with relevant subject or methodological expertise.

Acceptance requires documented final recommendations to accept from both reviewers, satisfactory resolution of substantive reviewer concerns, and compliance with the applicable publication policies.

Author-editor conflicts and other relevant interests are disclosed and managed according to the publisher's stated procedures. Review records and publication information reflect the process actually completed.

Peer review is not a guarantee that every error has been identified, nor does it constitute independent certification of a software product or research tool.

Read Publishing Policies

Scholarly Publications

This section lists works published through Vedanadhi’s Scholarly Publishing programme. Publication status and peer-review status are reported separately and accurately for each work.

Technical Validation of SREMAN: A Browser-Based Systematic Review and Evidence Management Tool for Cross-Database Interoperability, Screening-Data Preservation, and Project-State Restoration

Author: Vishnu Shivam, MBBS

Affiliation: Research and Development, Vedanadhi, Tamil Nadu, India-636115

Publication type: Technical report

First submitted: 19 October 2026

First published online: 20 October 2026

Peer-review status: Not yet externally peer-reviewed. Independent reviewers will be invited following initial online publication.

Abstract

Objective: To technically validate SREMAN (Systematic Reviews, Evidence Synthesis & Meta-Analysis Manager), a browser-based literature screening and evidence-management application, with respect to bibliographic import, integrated PubMed retrieval, cross-database interoperability, screening-data transfer, project-state preservation, and operational performance.

Methods: SREMAN was evaluated on October 7, 2026. Testing included a PubMed CSV file containing 6,645 records retrieved using “Leptin gene AND obesity” and a separate integrated PubMed retrieval workflow using “5-HTTLPR AND suicide,” which returned 134 records. Cross-database interoperability was assessed using CSV and RIS files from PubMed, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ScienceDirect. A project containing 30,963 records was used to evaluate CSV export, JSON backup and restoration, project clearing, and fresh-project import. An 18-record modified or incomplete CSV file was also tested. Functional outcomes were assessed against predefined acceptance criteria. Performance measurements were obtained using browser developer performance recordings, with three runs per operation; arithmetic means were calculated.

Results: All tested source files were successfully imported under the validation conditions. The modified CSV was processed with unavailable information remaining blank or unavailable rather than being intentionally reconstructed. Mean execution times were 24.7 milliseconds for initial application loading, 6.57 seconds for integrated PubMed retrieval, 2.70 seconds for importing 6,645 records, 2.98 seconds for exporting 30,963 records to CSV, and 3.09 seconds for JSON backup. Project clearing required 2.39 seconds, JSON restoration required 9.81 seconds, and fresh-project import of 30,963 screening records required 21.36 seconds. The large project was successfully exported, cleared, restored from JSON, and re-imported. CSV re-import recovered information represented in the exported fields, whereas JSON restoration recovered the broader project state represented in the backup.

Conclusion: SREMAN demonstrated functional support for large-scale bibliographic import, integrated PubMed retrieval, practical CSV/RIS interoperability with the tested sources, screening-data transfer, and project-state recovery. The performance measurements provide environment-specific evidence of operational feasibility for projects containing tens of thousands of records. However, the validation does not establish universal format compatibility, automatic duplicate detection, formal inter-reviewer reliability, or equivalence to established systematic-review methodologies. SREMAN may serve as a lightweight tool for browser-based literature screening and evidence management, with further validation warranted across additional environments and workflows.

Keywords: literature screening; systematic review; evidence synthesis; bibliographic database; software validation.

Read the full technical report

Publication Scope

Vedanadhi's Scholarly Publishing initiative focuses on systematic reviews, evidence synthesis, and the methods and technical workflows used to produce, manage, assess, and report synthesized evidence.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: Reviews that systematically identify, appraise, and synthesize relevant evidence.
Scoping reviews and evidence maps: Structured approaches to characterizing the extent, distribution, and nature of available evidence.
Other evidence-synthesis reviews: Methodologically appropriate forms of evidence synthesis, including umbrella reviews and rapid reviews.
Methodological publications: Works examining methods for literature searching, study selection, risk-of-bias assessment, data extraction, evidence synthesis, statistical analysis, and reporting.
Technical reports and software validation studies: Evaluations of tools and workflows directly relevant to systematic reviews, evidence management, literature screening, search provenance, data transfer, reproducibility, or other evidence-synthesis processes.

The publication format is selected according to the purpose, methods, scope, and contribution of each work. All publications must meet the applicable methodological, reporting, editorial, and peer-review requirements.

Vedanadhi encourages the appropriate use of established reporting guidelines, including those developed by the EQUATOR Network, where applicable to the design and scope of the work. The guideline used and the extent of compliance should be stated transparently in the publication.