From Knowledge Mapping to Evidence Synthesis: A Critical Path Model for Constructing Coherent Scientific Texts

Background. Contemporary academic writing practice is increasingly determined by standardized requirements for publication structure and typologies of review studies. At the same time, formal compliance with these standards does not guarantee the methodological coherence of a scientific text, as the logic of knowledge formation often remains unarticulated. Purpose. To propose a critical path model of knowledge synthesis, within which the preparation of a scientific text is considered as a sequential cognitive process governed by an invariant logic of epistemological operations. Materials and Methods. The study was conducted in the format of a conceptual narrative review involving methodological works on evidence synthesis, typologies of review studies, and academic writing. The analysis was aimed at reconstructing functional cognitive operations, establishing causal relationships between them, and formalizing their sequence in the form of a critical path. Results. Five invariant cognitive nodes were identified: orientation, conceptualization, verification, evidence synthesis, and interpretation. It was shown that these nodes form a critical path that determines the methodological coherence of a scientific text regardless of the publication genre. It was established that different types of reviews correspond to individual segments of this path but do not determine its logic. Typical violations of the critical path were identified, including meta-analysis without conceptualization, narrative generalizations without verification, and systematic reviews without orientation in the scientific field, which lead to predictable methodological deformations. Discussion. The obtained results indicate that methodological problems of contemporary scientific texts have a structural character and are associated with the substitution of the logic of cognition by genre-based and formal requirements. The proposed model makes it possible to interpret these violations as consequences of disruptions in causal relationships between cognitive operations. Conclusions. The methodological correctness of a scientific text is determined not by its formal type, but by the consistency of the preparation trajectory with the critical path of knowledge synthesis. The proposed model provides a basis for improving the quality of academic writing, peer review, and editorial evaluation.