My advisor wants a systematic review, but the journal’s structure differs from my university template?

Stick to the journal’s structure for your final submission because editors and reviewers prioritize adherence to their specific guidelines over generic academic templates. Your advisor’s insistence on PRISMA likely stems from a desire for methodological rigor, but journals have the final say on publication format, and deviating from their layout is the fastest way to get a desk rejection. You can satisfy both parties by keeping a detailed PRISMA-compliant draft for your university’s grading requirements while simultaneously preparing a clean, journal-formatted version for submission. For instance, you might maintain a separate document with the full PRISMA checklist and flow diagram for your advisor’s review, then merge the methods and results sections as the journal requests, ensuring the narrative remains logical and transparent. This approach demonstrates that you understand the underlying standards of systematic reviews while respecting the practical realities of publishing. Most journals provide explicit author guidelines that override institutional templates, so following those instructions shows professionalism and attention to detail. By clearly labeling your files and explaining your dual-format strategy to your advisor, you can prove that you haven’t cut corners on rigor, just adapted the presentation. This flexibility is a valuable skill in academia, where you’ll often need to tailor your work to different audiences and requirements without compromising the integrity of your research.