A recent article by Sierra-Correa and Cantera Kintz published in Marine Policy 51 2015 identifies the need for systematic reviews of evidence to inform marine policy and management. To guide their review, the authors apply the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) Statement as a methodology. We identified eighteen systematic reviews published on marine topics between 2008 and 2015. Of those which stated a methodology (N=12), 25% (N=3) applied the PRISMA Statement. PRISMA is a checklist designed by the medical community to improve reporting standards of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, rather than guidelines for their conduct. Relevant guidelines have already been produced by the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. By using PRISMA as a methodology without referring to these guidelines, or worse, post hoc without conducting a full systematic review, authors may unintentionally give the impression of having undertaken a more rigorous review than is in fact the case. Given the apparent increase in systematic reviews of marine and coastal topics, it is vital that appropriate methodology be used. Authors undertaking future reviews should use existing environmental systematic review guidance to help plan and conduct their review. By following these guidelines, standards for marine reviews should increase, ultimately resulting in more rigorous reviews better able to inform future marine science and policy