Editorial Policy, Publication Ethics, and Complete Instructions for Authors
Editorial Policy and Publication Ethics
Academic Medicine, the Association of American Medical Colleges' (AAMC's) peer-reviewed monthly journal, serves as an international forum for the exchange of ideas, information, and strategies that address the major challenges facing the academic medicine community as it strives to carry out its missions in the public interest.
To be considered for publication in
Academic Medicine, all submissions to the journal must address one or more of the key aspects of a major challenge facing academic medicine today. Submissions may fall within any of our stated
editorial focus areas:
- Education and training issues across the continuum, including premedical education, undergraduate medical education, graduate medical education, and continuing professional development, as well as interprofessional education.
- Health policy as it relates to education, research, and clinical care.
- Institutional policy and management of medical schools, faculties of medicine, and teaching hospitals, including financing medical education and managing research policies and practices.
- Alignment of the health professions workforce with societal needs.
- The culture and environment of academic medicine, including values, communication, professionalism, and professional identity.
- The intersection of academic medicine's multiple missions, including education, research, patient care, and community and global health.
- Advancing the field of health professions education research and scholarship.
Submissions may describe a practical approach to dealing with the issue addressed, add to readers' understanding of that issue, or both. Priority will be given to works that are likely to change thinking and/or practice. See
Types of Manuscripts and
Complete Instructions for Authors for detailed information about preparing a submission.
Qualifying for Authorship
Academic Medicine follows the Uniform Guidelines for Biomedical Journals Requirements of the
ICMJE for determining authorship (Vancouver Group Guidelines, 2010).
- Authorship is based on (1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data, (2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content, (3) final approval of the version to be published, and (4) agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Authors must meet conditions 1, 2, 3, and 4.
- Acquisition of funding, collection of data, and/or general supervision of the research group does not, alone, justify authorship.
- All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify should be listed; that is, the byline should include no honorary or ghost authors.
- Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.
- All contributors who do not meet these criteria for authorship should be listed in the acknowledgments section (see
Structured Disclosures). Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help or writing assistance, or a department chair who provided only general support.
- Persons who have contributed materially to the paper but whose contributions do not justify authorship may be listed in the acknowledgements (see
All authors should jointly make decisions about who is an author and who is a contributor before submitting the manuscript. All authors must approve in writing any change made to the listed authors after the manuscript is submitted (e.g., change in authorship order, removal or addition of an author). All changes must be explained in writing to the editor-in-chief, who may confirm these changes with one or more of the authors or contributors at his or her discretion. The editor-in-chief does not play a role in authorship/contributorship decisions and does not arbitrate conflicts related to authorship.
Number of Authors
In general, articles in
Academic Medicine have six or fewer authors. However, everyone who qualifies for authorship based on the criteria above should be listed as an author on the manuscript. If your submission has more than six authors, please include a written description of how each author meets the four conditions for authorship listed above. Contributors who do not meet all four conditions can be recognized in the acknowledgments at the end of the manuscript (see
Groups as Authors
When a large, multi-center group has conducted the work, the group should identify as authors the individuals who accept direct responsibility for the manuscript. These individuals should fully meet the criteria for authorship/contributorship defined above. When submitting a group-authored manuscript, the corresponding author should clearly identify all individual authors as well as the group name. Other members of the group may be listed under the group name in the acknowledgments at the end of the manuscript (see
Structured Disclosures). The National Library of Medicine indexes the group name and the names of individuals whom the group has identified as being directly responsible for the manuscript; it also lists the names of collaborators if they are listed in the acknowledgments.
Co-first authorship is discouraged. We will consider co-first authors only in situations in which a compelling argument is made by the authors. If two authors wish to share the role of first author, the corresponding author should specify this in the submission and provide justification for the decision. To indicate co-first authorship, the published article will include a note that, "The authors have informed the journal that they agree that both Author A and Author B completed the intellectual and other work typical of the first author."
Terms of Consideration
Manuscripts are considered for publication with the understanding that they are not under consideration by other journals and have not been published in the same or substantially similar form previously.
Prior and Duplicate Publication
At submission, authors must explain any prior publication (including any electronic publication, such as a blog post) of the same or a substantially similar manuscript, or partial disclosure of data, as well as circumstances that might lead the editor-in-chief, deputy or associate editors, reviewers, or editorial staff to believe (1) that the manuscript may have been published elsewhere (e.g., when the title of a submitted manuscript is the same as or similar to the title of a previously published article), or (2) that the manuscript or one very similar to it may have been published in or submitted to
Academic Medicine previously.
Short abstracts (250-300 words) of preliminary research findings presented in conference proceedings are not considered prior publications.
Multiple Submissions From One Project
In general, all findings from a single study should be reported in a single manuscript rather than dividing a project into a series of “minimum publishable units.” We do recognize, however, that in some cases, it is appropriate to develop multiple submissions based on a single project, and we would encourage authors, in such cases, to submit all manuscripts to the same journal so they can be evaluated together. Occasions when it might be appropriate to submit multiple manuscripts from a single project include but are not limited to distinctly different research questions being posed about the same data set, reanalysis (new questions) of a data set suggested by subsequent experience, and large segments of complex analyses that do not easily fit within normal length limitations and can be seen as freestanding components.
Always clearly disclose at the time of submission any previous or planned submissions from the same study, project, or data set by noting this in the submission form. Also, related publications should be referenced in the manuscript.
Circumstances that suggest inappropriate prior or duplicate publication include but are not limited to (1) cases where the results of the same study are divided into different manuscripts (e.g., findings for faculty are reported in one and findings for residents are reported in another), one of which is submitted to
Academic Medicine and another of which is submitted either to
Academic Medicine or elsewhere, and/or (2) cases in which data from the same study are analyzed in different ways to produce apparently different manuscripts.
Preprint repositories are online platforms for publicly sharing unpublished work.
Academic Medicine will consider on a case-by-case basis submissions that have been previously posted in a preprint repository. At the time of submission, the authors must disclose in the submission form the preprint posting of the manuscript and must provide a link to that posting if it is still active.
Submitting to Both Academic Medicine and MedEdPORTAL
MedEdPORTAL is an open-access, peer-reviewed journal of standalone, complete teaching or learning modules that have been tested and are ready for implementation. MedEdPORTAL does not publish traditional articles; rather, it publishes the actual educational material or tool. Authors who submit educational materials to MedEdPORTAL may also submit manuscripts about their educational materials to
Academic Medicine and vice versa. For example, an author might submit an innovative learning module to MedEdPORTAL and submit a General Scholarly Article to
Academic Medicine that presents an in-depth description and analysis of the implementation plus robust outcomes of that learning module. The two submissions should be distinct, and there should be no reused or overlapping text between the two submissions. For example, MedEdPORTAL would not consider publishing a tool that had already been submitted to or published in
Academic Medicine as an appendix to an article; similarly,
Academic Medicine would not consider publishing an article that used the same language published in a MedEdPORTAL Educational Summary Report. If submitting to both MedEdPORTAL and
Academic Medicine, the authors should disclose at the time of submission that they have sent a related submission to the other publication.
For more guidance, see
Should I Submit My Work to
Academic Medicine or to MedEdPORTAL?
Submitting a Master’s or PhD Thesis
Authors are permitted to submit manuscripts that have been previously used as a chapter or section of a master’s or PhD thesis. This should be clearly disclosed in the submission form as well as in the “Previous presentations” section of the structured disclosures at the end of the manuscript (see
Authors are also permitted to include their published
Academic Medicine articles as a chapter or section of their master’s or PhD thesis. The article must be used as published without changes, and the original publication in
Academic Medicine should be clearly credited with a full citation.
Publishing the article in
Academic Medicine before using it in a thesis is the preferred approach.
Authors may not send the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time, or to any other publisher of books, electronic resources, or other materials. If the editors or editorial staff members learn of any possible simultaneous submission,
Academic Medicine reserves the right to consult with the other editor(s) or publisher(s) who have received the manuscript. Furthermore, the manuscript may be rejected without review, or may be rejected without regard to the reviews. The editor-in-chief may make a decision about acceptance in discussion with the other journal editor(s) or publisher(s) involved.
Appeals of editorial decisions are considered by the editor-in-chief. To appeal a decision, a letter must be submitted (to
firstname.lastname@example.org) explaining the reasoning behind the appeal. The editor-in-chief reviews all appeals, and the editorial office will issue a definitive response within two weeks of receipt.
Errors identified in published online ahead-of-print versions of an article can be corrected in the final, printed version of the article. Once an article is published in a print issue, however, it cannot be changed. If an error is identified in the final version of a published article, the editor-in-chief and journal staff will determine whether to publish a formal correction/erratum in the journal. To warrant a formal correction, an error must affect the nature of the publication or the interpretation of its results. In such rare cases, a separate item noting the correction will be published in the next available issue of the journal, and a link to the published correction will be added to the online version of the original article.
Conflict of Interest
Authors are required to declare any and all conflicts of interest—financial, personal, or other—that may affect the information, research, analysis, or interpretation presented in the manuscript in the structured disclosures section (see
Structured Disclosures) in every Article, Research Report, Perspective, Innovation Report, Literature Review, Invited Commentary, and Letter to the Editor published in
Academic Medicine. A conflict of interest exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest may be influenced by secondary interests. This information will be held in confidence by the editor-in-chief, unless the manuscript is accepted, in which case a general description of the conflict, provided by the author, will be published with the article. In general, authors should err on the side of disclosing a potential conflict of interest if there is a question about whether a relationship or interest should be disclosed.
Reviewers and editors are required to declare any and all potential conflicts of interest. If an author of a manuscript under consideration has a primary appointment at the editor-in-chief's institution, decisions regarding that manuscript will be made by the deputy editor or an associate editor. If an author has a primary appointment at a deputy editor’s or associate editor’s institution, that deputy editor or associate editor will not be involved in the decision regarding that manuscript. If the editor-in-chief is an author of a manuscript under consideration, decisions regarding that manuscript will be made by the chair of the
Journal Oversight Committee.
An editorial board is appointed by the editor-in-chief to provide guidance and advice to the editor-in-chief regarding journal content and editorial focus. Each member of the
Academic Medicine Editorial Board is expected to (1) present unbiased, independent, and professional advice to the editor-in-chief, (2) maintain confidentiality about editorial board activities and discussion, and (3) sign a disclosure form to affirm that he or she has read, understands, and agrees to abide by the conflict of interest policy and to disclose any known conflicts or to state that no conflicts exist at the time. Conflicts of interest must be disclosed to the editor-in-chief who will determine how to manage, reduce, or eliminate the conflict.
Authors of accepted peer-reviewed articles have the choice to pay a fee to allow perpetual unrestricted online access to their published article to readers globally, immediately upon publication. Authors may take advantage of the open access option at the point of acceptance to ensure that this choice has no influence on the peer review and acceptance process. These articles are subject to the journal's standard peer-review process and will be accepted or rejected based on their own merit.
As described below, open access is more than an article being freely accessible without a subscription. Please note that a number of our submission types are always free to access without a subscription: Invited Commentaries, Letters to the Editor, AM Last Pages, Teaching and Learning Moments, and Cover Art. Currently, open access is not available for these types of publications, but they are always available for free.
The article processing charge (APC) for open access articles is charged on acceptance of the article and should be paid within 30 days by the author, funding agency, or institution. Payment must be processed for the article to be published open access. For a list of journals and pricing please visit our
Wolters Kluwer Open Health Journals page.
Authors retain copyright
Authors retain their copyright for all articles they opt to publish open access. Authors grant Wolters Kluwer an exclusive license to publish the article and the article is made available under the terms of a Creative Commons user license. Please visit our
Open Access Publication Process page for more information.
Creative Commons license
Open access articles are freely available to read, download, and share from the time of publication under the terms of the Creative Commons License Attribution-NonCommerical No Derivative (CC BY-NC-ND) license. This license does not permit reuse for any commercial purposes nor does it cover the reuse or modification of individual elements of the work (such as figures, tables, etc.) in the creation of derivative works without specific permission.
Compliance with funder mandated open access policies
An author whose work is funded by an organization that mandates the use of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license is able to meet that requirement through the available open access license for approved funders. Information about the approved funders can be found on the Wolters Kluwer For Institutions and Funders page.
FAQs for open access
Please visit the Wolters Kluwer Frequently Asked Questions page for more information.
Compliance with NIH, RCUK, and Other Research Funding Agency Accessibility Requirements
A number of research funding agencies now require or request authors to submit the post-print (the article after peer review and acceptance but not the final published article) to a repository that is accessible online by all without charge. As a service to our authors, Wolters Kluwer identifies to the National Library of Medicine (NLM) articles that require deposit and transmits to PubMed Central the post-print of an article based on research funded in whole or in part by the National Institutes of Health, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, or other funding agencies. The journal’s Author Agreement, completed by all authors at the revised manuscript submission stage, provides the mechanism. Wolters Kluwer ensures that authors can fully comply with the public access requirements of major funding bodies worldwide. Additionally, all authors who choose the
open access option will have their final published article deposited into PubMed Central.
Research Councils UK (RCUK) funded authors can choose to publish their paper as
open access (gold route) with the payment of an article processing charge, or opt for their accepted manuscript to be deposited (green route) into PubMed Central with an embargo.
With both the gold and green open access options, all authors will continue to complete the Author Agreement, as it provides the mechanism for Wolters Kluwer to ensure that authors are fully compliant with the requirements. After completion of the Author Agreement, the corresponding author will then sign a License to Publish where they will then own the copyright.
It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to inform the Editorial Office and/or Wolters Kluwer that they have RCUK funding. Wolters Kluwer will not be held responsible for retroactive deposits to PubMed Central if the author has not completed the proper forms.
Please visit the Wolters Kluwer Frequently Asked Questions page for more information.
Copyright and Permission
The content of the published manuscript, as read and approved by the authors after editing and as proofread by the authors after it is typeset, is the responsibility of the authors.
open access retain copyright for their article and grant Wolters Kluwer a license to publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher. Articles published under open access adhere to the terms of the Creative Commons License Attribution-NonCommerical No Derivative 3.0. More information is available on the
Creative Commons website.
Authors who do not choose open access assign copyright via the Author Agreement (completed by each author at the revised submission stage) to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), which publishes Academic Medicine. Material published in
Academic Medicine, in print and online, is covered by copyright. Written permission must be received to reproduce, display, or transmit journal content in any form by any means. For information on obtaining permission, please visit the Rights and Permissions page.
Authors are wholly responsible for identifying materials in their manuscripts that are copyrighted by other publishers or authors. Authors must obtain written permission to use these materials in the submitted manuscript and provide a copy of that permission to the journal.
Publication Online Ahead of Print
The edited manuscript files of Research Reports, Articles, Invited Commentaries, Perspectives, Innovation Reports, Literature Reviews, and AM Last Pages are published online on a rolling basis, five business days after the final edited files are submitted to the publisher. Editorials, Cover Art, Letters to the Editor, Medicine and the Arts, and Teaching and Learning Moments are not published online in advance.
Open-access articles are permanently freely available online from the moment they are published. All content, regardless of open access status, is freely available online during the time it is posted on the
Published Ahead-of-Print page, and then again in perpetuity 12 months after final publication in the print issue. The journal maintains a freely accessible online archive extending back to its first issue in 1926.
Ethical Approval for Studies Involving Human Participants
Academic Medicine's policies regarding the treatment of human participants follow those of the
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). For studies or evaluations involving human participants (including students, residents, and faculty), it is the author's responsibility to provide details of ethical approval for the research in the manuscript, including but not limited to the name of the approving committee (e.g., Institutional Review Board, Research Ethics Board) and the name of the institution at which approval was granted. (Please note that at many U.S. institutions, a decision of "exempt" must be made by an Institutional Review Board or an individual designated by the institution, but may not be made by the investigator.) These details, as well as the approval date and reference number, must be provided in the structured disclosures section at the end of the manuscript as well as in the body of the manuscript. Even if the activity was declared to be exempt from human subject review, that exemption and the method by which it was determined must be reported.
Please note that the authors of any manuscript containing a study or evaluation involving human participants must seek ethical review and provide details (i.e., the reviewing body as well as the decision) of this review in the manuscript. This applies to Research Reports as well as Innovation Reports or Articles that contain a research or evaluation component. In Research Reports, the ethical review details should be described in the Method section; for other article types, the ethical approval details should be described alongside any details about the study or evaluation activity.
Authors who do not have access to a formal ethical approval process must provide information in the manuscript about the treatment of human participants. The following should be addressed:
- how risks to human participants were minimized,
- why the risks were reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits,
- how the selection of participants was equitable,
- whether adequate procedures were in place to ensure the privacy and confidentiality of participants,
- the plan used to monitor the data and safety of the subjects,
- how informed consent was sought and documented,
- if applicable, what safeguards were used to protect vulnerable populations, and
- other relevant information.
It is the responsibility of the author(s) to ensure that studies have been conducted in accordance with the latest version of the principles of the
Declaration of Helsinki. Also, it may be useful to consult the statements on ethics of the
American Educational Research Association, the
American Psychological Association, the
American Sociological Association, and/or other national and international organizations.
The embargo period begins when a manuscript is submitted to Academic Medicine and ends on the publication date at 6:00 p.m. eastern time. The embargo means that information concerning the manuscript cannot be published, broadcasted, posted online, or otherwise placed in the public domain until the manuscript is published. For Articles, Research Reports, Perspectives, Innovation Reports, Literature Reviews, Invited Commentaries, and AM Last Pages, the embargo lifts when these items are posted online; for other items (Cover Art, Letters to the Editor, Medicine and the Arts, Teaching and Learning Moments), the embargo lifts when the print issue is mailed and posted as the Current Issue on the home page.
After the embargo lifts, the published article can be shared and promoted widely. If you do share an article, please do so by circulating or posting a link to the article on
www.academicmedicine.org. Please do not post or circulate PDFs.
Communication with the Media
Academic Medicine sends out monthly announcements about recently published online ahead-of-print articles to members of the press. These articles are no longer under embargo and are able to be shared. Authors may therefore receive calls or emails from representatives of the media. We encourage authors to cooperate with journalists to maximize the accuracy of subsequent media coverage. Authors whose articles are scheduled for publication may also arrange their own publicity, but they must strictly adhere to Academic Medicine’s embargo policy. If an author’s organization is planning a press release, media pitch, or other media outreach, these activities should be coordinated with Toni Gallo, Senior Staff Editor,
email@example.com and John Buarotti, AAMC Media Relations Specialist,
Communication with Colleagues or at Conferences
Academic Medicine recognizes the importance of timely communication among researchers. For that reason, presentation and discussion at conferences and meetings of manuscripts that have been submitted to
Academic Medicine is permitted, but authors must indicate that their work is subject to the press embargo above. Authors may publish abstracts in conference proceedings, but should not distribute copies of manuscripts, or tables and figures from manuscripts, that are under embargo.
Types of Manuscripts
Articles may vary in style and length. Generally, they are no longer than 3,000 words and no shorter than 1,500 words (this includes the text only; title page, abstract, references, and exhibits are not included in the word count). However, an author should choose the manuscript length and number of references needed to get the message across. The final length and format will be determined by editorial staff during the review process or when the accepted manuscript is edited.
Articles may have up to five exhibits in total;
Supplemental Digital Content may be used if further exhibits are required. The abstract for an Article has no headings and is no longer than 250 words. The number of references should be appropriate to the length and depth of the piece. References should be representative, not comprehensive, and are generally limited to 50.
Articles cover topics of broad concern to academic medicine; for example, examinations of policies affecting the academic medicine community as a whole; descriptions of institutional mergers or starting new schools; analyses of current educational, political, financial, or social trends affecting or likely to affect academic medicine; and descriptions of well-established innovations with systemic implications for medical education, training, and research.
Articles may also describe topics directly and practically relevant to medical school education, residency training, graduate medical education, or continuing medical education. Such topics include descriptions of well-established innovative programs, medical informatics, information and medical technologies, the history of medical education and training, humanities in medical education, administration or funding innovations, etc.
Articles can combine elements of research and description, where the research is not sufficiently robust or central enough to the Article's message to constitute a full-fledged
Additional guidelines for Articles can be found in the
Publication Criteria for Articles and Perspectives. Additional information on describing well-established innovative programs is available in the August 2008 editorial; for information on describing pilot or early-stage initiatives, see
Innovation Reports. The For Authors page also offers a resource on preparing Articles.
Program evaluations may be formatted and submitted as Articles, Research Reports, or Innovation Reports. (See Articles and
Research Reports for information about those types of program evaluations.) The journal’s November 2017 editorial provides further guidance about preparing and submitting program evaluation manuscripts. A program evaluation should be presented as an Article under the following circumstances:
- The purpose is primarily descriptive or conceptual.
- The evaluation is not the main focus of the article.
- The evaluation is focused on a more mature program.
- The manuscript provides rich background and context.
- There is discussion about broad application and improvement through future work.
Perspectives may vary in style and length. Generally, they are no longer than 3,000 words and no shorter than 1,500 words (this includes the text only; title page, abstract, references, and exhibits are not included in the word count). However, an author should choose the manuscript length and number of references needed to get the message across. The final length and format will be determined by editorial staff during the review process or when the accepted manuscript is edited.
Perspectives generally have few exhibits, if any, though they may have up to five exhibits in total;
Supplemental Digital Content may be used if further exhibits are required. The abstract for a Perspective has no headings and is no longer than 250 words. The number of references should be appropriate to the length and depth of the piece. References should be representative, not comprehensive, and are generally limited to 50.
Perspectives describe a considered view about one or more issues in academic medicine, propose and support a new hypothesis, or theorize the implications of as-yet unimplemented programs or innovations. Perspectives, which are peer reviewed, must be scholarly and arguments must be well supported.
Additional guidelines for Perspectives can be found in the
Publication Criteria for Articles and Perspectives.
Invited Commentaries are invited by the editor-in-chief. Authors should not submit an Invited Commentary without receiving a formal invitation to do so from the editor-in-chief. These solicited opinion essays comment on or set the context for an article or articles that have been accepted for publication. They can also be standalone essays framed as calls to action on major challenges. The abstract for an Invited Commentary has no headings and is no longer than 250 words. Invited Commentaries have few references and rely heavily on the author's perspective and experience to support the argument. They should be less than 2,000 words (this includes the text only; title page, abstract, references, and exhibits are not included in the word count) and generally have few exhibits, if any.
Research Reports are reports of original research on any aspect of academic medicine. They may vary in style and length. Generally, Research Reports are no longer than 3,000 words and no shorter than 1,500 words. Qualitative research submissions, which often require more words due to the nature of the data being reported, are generally no longer than 4,000 words. (All word counts include the text only; title page, abstract, references, and exhibits are not included in the word count). However, an author should choose the manuscript length needed to get the message across. The final length and format will be determined by editorial staff during the review process or when the accepted manuscript is edited.
Research Reports may have up to five exhibits in total;
Supplemental Digital Content may be used if further exhibits are required. The abstract for a Research Report should be structured under the headings Purpose, Method, Results, Conclusions, and be no longer than 250 words. The text should be structured under the main-level headings Introduction, Method, Results, and Discussion. Raw numbers should accompany percentages, wherever possible throughout the text and exhibits (see
Data Reporting and Analysis). The number of references should be appropriate to the length and depth of the piece; references should be representative, not comprehensive, and are generally limited to 50.
In general, the study must address a serious challenge facing the academic medicine community. Additional guidelines for Research Reports can be found in the Publication Criteria for Research Reports. The
For Authors page offers resources on preparing Research Reports.
Program evaluations may be formatted and submitted as Articles, Research Reports, or Innovation Reports. (See Articles and
Research Reports for information about those types of program evaluations.) The journal’s November 2017 editorial provides further guidance about preparing and submitting program evaluation manuscripts. A program evaluation should be presented as a Research Report under the following circumstances:
- There is a specific research question(s).
- The manuscript reports rigorous evaluation methods.
- The manuscript provides robust data analysis.
- The findings advance understanding about the topic that was investigated.
An Innovation Report introduces a new approach to a challenge facing the wider academic medicine community. The goal of an Innovation Report is to highlight first steps toward a larger-scale solution to such a challenge, whether through an innovative pilot or early-stage initiative at a single institution or preliminary research that defines the challenge and/or lays the groundwork for larger-scale approaches to the stated problem. An Innovation Report must demonstrate that the authors’ work has significant implications for the continued study of the stated problem. It must also provide enough information to allow the replication of the innovation or continuation of the research in other settings.
Innovation Reports have a strict limit of 2,000 words (this limit applies to the text only; title page, abstract, disclosures, references, and exhibits are not included in the word count). The abstract and text must be organized under the main-level headings Problem, Approach, Outcomes, Next Steps. Innovation Reports may have no more than 10 references and are limited to three total exhibits; Supplemental Digital Content may be used if further exhibits are required.
Additional guidelines for Innovation Reports can be found in the
Publication Criteria for Innovation Reports. The
For Authors page offers resources on preparing Innovation Reports.
Program evaluations may be formatted and submitted as Articles, Research Reports, or Innovation Reports. (See Articles and Research Reports for information about those types of program evaluations.) The journal’s November 2017 editorial provides further guidance about preparing and submitting program evaluation manuscripts. A program evaluation should be presented as an Innovation Report under the following circumstances:
- The manuscript introduces a new approach to a challenge facing the wider academic medicine community.
- The manuscript gives a glimpse into a program at an early stage of development.
- The manuscript describes a local, novel, often cutting-edge approach that may be generalizable.
- The manuscript emphasizes how a preliminary evaluation of the early experience informs next steps.
Academic Medicine considers Literature Review submissions that critically review and synthesize the scholarly literature. Literature Reviews should provide new understanding of the topic or provide new ways of thinking about the issues under review. Priority will be given to critical reviews by experts that help advance understanding of a specific topic or problem in academic medicine. Reviews may vary in type and length. Generally, Literature Reviews are no longer than 4,000 words. (Word count includes the text only; title page, abstract, references, disclosures, and exhibits are not included in the word count). However, an author should choose the manuscript length needed to get the message across. The final length and format will be determined by editorial staff during the review process or when the accepted manuscript is edited.
Literature Reviews may have up to five exhibits in total;
Supplemental Digital Content may be used if further exhibits are required. The abstract for a Literature Review should be structured under the headings Purpose, Method, Results, Conclusions, and be no longer than 250 words. The text should be structured under the main-level headings Introduction, Method, Results, and Discussion. Raw numbers should accompany percentages, wherever possible throughout the text and exhibits (see
Data Reporting and Analysis).
In successful Literature Review submissions, comprehensive parameters are defined and followed for searching the literature, and findings are interpreted and put into context. In general, Literature Review submissions should adhere to the guidelines below. Additional guidelines for Literature Reviews can be found in the
Publication Criteria for Literature Reviews. The
For Authors page offers resources on preparing Literature Reviews.
It is recommended that authors consult the review type’s relevant guidelines (e.g., for a systematic review, the authors might consider PRISMA.) Guidelines for a wide range of review types are available at:
Systematic reviews analyze and interpret all available evidence in the literature related to a specific, focused research question. They have the following characteristics:
- Reproducibility and research question: Distinct reproducible research method. Requires a testable hypothesis or a focused research question.
- Search and selection process: The search of the literature is systematic and comprehensive; articles are selected for inclusion according to criteria set in advance.
- Analysis: Data are systematically abstracted from the reviewed articles and compiled into evidence tables.
- Interpretation: Data are interpreted in the context of all relevant studies. (Meta-analyses analyze data across studies identified in systematic reviews.)
(Adapted from Lang TA. The value of systematic reviews as research activities in medical education. Acad Med. 2004;79:1067-1072.)
Narrative reviews serve to describe the existing literature on a topic without offering systematic analysis of the quality of that literature. They have the following characteristics:
- Reproducibility and research question: Neither systematic nor reproducible.
- Search and selection process: An “expert” selects the articles deemed to be most important.
- Analysis: An “expert” comes to some conclusions based on these articles (as well as his or her own experience).
- Interpretation: An “expert” summarizes his or her understanding of the issues in a review article.
(Adapted from Lang TA. The value of systematic reviews as research activities in medical education. Acad Med. 2004;79:1067-1072.)
Scoping reviews address broader, exploratory research questions with the ultimate goal of mapping the literature on a topic. They have the following characteristics:
- Reproducibility and research question: Research question is broad and exploratory in nature.
- Search and selection process: Search is systematic and described in detail with flexible inclusion/exclusion criteria.
- Analysis: Studies are not systematically appraised or appraisal is informal.
- Interpretation: Synthesis is typically performed based on qualitative characteristics. No quantitative analysis is performed.
For more on scoping reviews, see
Thomas A, Lubarsky S, Durning SJ, Young ME. Knowledge Synthesis in Medical Education: Demystifying Scoping Reviews. Acad Med. 2017;92:161-166.
Other types of reviews
This is not an exhaustive list of review types considered by the journal. Other review types are welcome. It is recommended that, no matter the review type selected, the authors clearly state their rationale for selecting the review type and, when possible, consult the review type’s relevant guidelines (e.g., for a realist review, authors might consider the RAMSES publication standards). Guidelines for a wide range of literature review types are available at:
New Conversations is an ongoing series that allows authors to discuss a pre-determined topic in articles published over the course of many issues—typically a year or more. The New Conversations topic is determined by the editor-in-chief in consultation with the associate editors and editorial board. The current New Conversations topic is outlined in an AM Rounds blog
New Conversations submissions may be invited or unsolicited. Anyone may submit an article to be considered as part of the New Conversations series. New Conversations submissions can be formatted as
Articles, Perspectives, Invited Commentaries,
Innovation Reports, or Literature Reviews, but they must fit within the current New Conversations topic. To have your submission considered for the New Conversations series, use the article type “New Conversations” when submitting your manuscript. Submissions are peer reviewed and subject to editing if accepted.
Abstracts are not needed for the items in the following categories; generally, references are not needed either.
These original works of art should be inspired by, but not necessarily representative of, an academic medicine experience from any perspective: caregiver, researcher, teacher, learner, or patient (for example, learning how to be a physician or scientist, caring for patients, exploring research questions, making a new discovery, being a research participant, teaching, or being cared for in a teaching hospital). The journal welcomes photography, sculpture, painting, textile work, and other visual media. Images may be cropped or resized to fit into the allotted cover space. Acceptance is contingent on the artist's signing an AAMC Artist Consent Form provided at the time the offer of publication is extended.
Artists must also submit a related Cover Art essay as a narrative companion to the artwork, to explain the connection between the work and the "academic medicine experience." The related narrative should be 250 to 600 words and is subject to editing.
High-resolution TIFF files with a minimum of 300 dpi resolution are required at the time of submission. Images are at least 4 ¼" x 4 ¼" (with the ideal size being 4 ¼" x 4 ½") and are vertical or square, not horizontal. Images must be grayscale or CMYK. Submissions do not require an abstract.
AM Last Page (LP)
This monthly feature is designed to make the journal’s content more accessible to more people by promoting a general understanding of important issues that affect medical schools and teaching hospitals. This feature tells a story—visually and succinctly—through images or figures and complementary text of theories, frameworks, phenomena, controversies, policies, or trends important to medical education or the medical community at large (see recent issues of the journal or search for “AM Last Page” in PubMed for examples). Each LP and all the information on a single LP should answer a single question or satisfy a single objective. LP topics should be timely (i.e., of current or ongoing interest) and evidence based. LPs are not mini-reports, and time-sensitive data should be kept to a minimum.
The number of images used in an LP should be carefully balanced with consideration for the topic and visual appeal or aesthetics. LPs should not be overly dense. The ideal number of images is three, and each LP should have no more than 575 words, possibly fewer depending on the number and size of visual elements. Submissions do not require an abstract. Not all of the information needs to be new, but it must be combined and presented in a unique way so as to provide new insights to AM readers. (Additional guidelines for information already under copyright can be found in the
Copyright and Permission section. Authors must provide written permission to reuse any copyrighted materials.) LPs may include up to 4 references.
Photos and graphics must be of print quality (a minimum of 300 dpi) and should be submitted in the file format in which they were created. Submissions undergo peer review and substantive editing.
Additional guidelines for LPs can be found in the
Publication Criteria for Last Pages.
Letters to the Editor
Letters can be responses to articles in the journal, replies to other letters, or standalone communications about issues of importance in academic medicine. They may not be reports of research or programs, although these may be mentioned briefly if germane to the letters’ issues. They must not duplicate other material that has been published or submitted for publication. Letters and replies will be published at the discretion of the editor and are subject to abridgement and editing for style and content.
Letters should be tightly focused and are no longer than 400 words (including references). They have no tables or figures and no more than three authors. Submissions do not require an abstract. The cover letter that accompanies submissions must include the full citation of the article or letter being commented upon.
Authors whose published articles are the subject of a Letter to the Editor will have the opportunity to respond to that letter, in the same issue in which the letter is printed.
Medicine and the Arts (MATA)
This column is the journal's longest-running feature. It is published on two facing pages. The left-hand page features an excerpt from literature, a poem, a photograph, etc. Literature excerpts generally run no more than 700 words and may include a very brief introduction as needed. The right-hand page presents an original commentary of about 900 words that explores the relevance of the artwork to the teaching, learning, and/or practice of medicine. Since submissions cannot be fully accepted for publication until
Academic Medicine acquires permission to reprint literary excerpts or artworks (which often takes many months), authors should include all relevant information about the piece they are explicating (publisher, museum, dates, etc.) to enable staff editors to find and contact the copyright holder. Submissions undergo review and editing.
Teaching and Learning Moments (TLM)
This feature is published on a regular but space-available basis. Pieces vary in style and subject but must be first-person, narrative essays. Typically, the author tells the story of an experience related to the art or science of teaching, learning, or practicing medicine, and reflects on the meaning of that experience, as it pertains to her or his life and work. Essays should be no more than 600 words and must fit on one journal page.
Complete Instructions for Authors
Preparing a Manuscript: Requirements and Standards
- All manuscripts must be submitted electronically via Editorial Manager at
Submitting a Manuscript for more details.)
- Manuscripts should be double spaced and left-justified, including references. Use 12-point type, Times New Roman font, 1-inch margins, and format for 8 ½ x 11 paper.
- Supply a title page as the first page of the manuscript with the following information:
- The manuscript's full title.
- An author byline that lists all authors' full names and academic degrees at the master’s level and above; for example, "Jane M. Smith, MD, PhD, and John Q. James, MD, MBA."
- Sentence-style bios for each author that list position(s) or title(s) and institutional affiliation(s). Bios can also include ORCID IDs, formatted as a hyperlink; ORCID IDs are completely optional. For example, "J.M. Smith is assistant professor, Department of Family Medicine, State University College of Medicine, City, State; ORCID: https://orcid.org/XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX."
- Contact information (address and email address, plus telephone if desired) for the corresponding author; you may also include the corresponding author’s Twitter handle if it is used primarily for professional purposes. To illustrate, “Correspondence should be addressed to Jane M. Smith, Department of Medicine, State University, 123 Main Street, Box 111, City, State; telephone:
123-456-7890; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org; Twitter: @Author1.”
- Number all pages, starting with the title page.
- Spell out all acronyms in full at first use.
- Generally, write using the first person, active voice; for example, "We analyzed data," not "Data were analyzed." The
Structured Disclosures are the exceptions to this guideline, and should be written in the third person, active voice: "The authors analyzed," "The authors wish to thank."
Initial Manuscript Submission
Please be aware that all files you submit at this stage will be combined and converted into a PDF by Editorial Manager for peer-review purposes.
- MS Word
Revised Manuscript Submission
For editing purposes, edit-ready files must be submitted through Editorial Manager.
- Text files must be submitted in MS Word, without any electronic links between in-text reference citations and references. (See
References for more information about
Academic Medicine's reference style.)
- Table files must be submitted as a seperate MS Word file. (See
Tables for more information.)
- Figures must be provided in files that can be opened and edited (e.g., PowerPoint, Excel, or Word [figures that were not created in Word should not be pasted into word; they should be provided in their original format]). In the event that such figure files cannot be provided or editors cannot manipulate the provided files, authors will be required to revise figures as requested during the editorial process. (See
Figures for information about formatting graphics and resolution requirements.)
NOTE: The editor-in-chief and editorial staff will make reasonable allowance for minor deviations from these specifications as long as they do not interfere with reading, reviewing, or editing the manuscript. Corrections or changes may be required of authors if the manuscript undergoes revisions. Major deviations, however, will lead journal staff to send the manuscript back to the authors for corrections before the manuscript is initially processed.
- The abstract should be written in the past tense, third person, active voice, and must not exceed 250 words; for example, "The authors interviewed 30 deans."
- The abstract must fully reflect the scope of the manuscript. It should act as a summary, not as an introduction. It cannot contain information that is not also included in the main text and it must not contain any citations.
- The data and findings reported in the abstract must match those reported in the main text.
- The abstract must appear on its own page in the manuscript file, between the title page and the first page of the main text.
- For Research Reports and Literature Reviews only, abstracts must be in the structured form of four paragraphs, with headings Purpose, Method, Results, and Conclusions, and they must include the year of the study.
- For Innovation Reports only, abstracts must be in the structured form of four paragraphs, with headings Problem, Approach, Outcomes, Next Steps, and they must include the time period.
- All manuscripts: Use main headings and short subheadings as needed. Do not create a heading at the very beginning of the manuscript, since layout constraints make such headings unworkable. At least one full paragraph of text must precede the first heading (e.g., Introduction, Background). Distinguish main-level headings (16-point font, bold, Title Style Capitalization) from subheadings (12-point font, bold, Sentence style capitalization). If subheadings are used, two or more such headings must be used, as in outline style.
- Research Reports and Literature Reviews: Structure the body of the manuscript using the main-level headings Method, Results, and Discussions. Sometimes, additional main-level headings (e.g., Introduction, Conclusions) may be appropriate. Subheadings may be used as needed within each main section as long as there are two such headings within the section.
- Articles and Perspectives: Create headings that are substantive or descriptive and interesting and that will give readers a sense of the article's organization. Make headings as short as is feasible. Do not use Research Report/Literature Review headings.
- Innovation Reports: Structure the body of the manuscript using the main-level headings Problem, Approach, Outcomes, and Next Steps. Unlike other manuscripts, Innovation Reports must begin with the Problem heading before the first paragraph of text. Subheadings may be used as needed within each main section as long as there are at least two such headings within the section.
Data and Analysis
- Percentages: Include raw numbers with percentages; for example, 100 (50%) of the respondents; many respondents (n = 100, 50%); 100 respondents (50%). Round percentages consistently, e.g., to the nearest whole number (50%) or one decimal place (50.0%).
- Confidence intervals: Report appropriate confidence intervals whenever possible.
- Standard deviations: Report standard deviations in parentheses—i.e., “mean (SD)” rather than “mean ± SD.”
- P values: In general, report actual P values to two decimal places (e.g., P = .01), unless P < .01 or rounding to two places would make a particular value insignificant. In such cases, report the P value to three decimal places. Do not round P values to 0 or 1; instead, use P < .001 and P > .99, respectively. Describe P values as “statistically significant” or “not statistically significant.”
- Software: When describing statistical analyses in the Method, please include the name and version of the software used in the text, followed by the manufacturer’s name and location in parentheses; for example, “The data were analyzed using Stata SE 13.1 for Windows (Stata Corp, College Station, Texas).” Please do not cite the software in the reference list.
- Data sharing: Authors have the option to share with readers the datasets used in their research. Authors wishing to do so may deposit their data in a publicly accessible repository and include a link to the DOI within the text of the manuscript, as well as in an optional category in the
Structured Disclosures section. For example, “Data sharing: The data analyzed for this study have been deposited in Figshare and are available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.4884569.v2.”
- Use tables (1) only when their information cannot easily be stated or summarized in the manuscript, and (2) only when that information concerns a central issue of the manuscript.
- Up to 5 exhibits, total, are permitted for Articles, Perspectives, Research Reports, and Literature Reviews; Innovation Reports may have up to 3 exhibits. Additional exhibits may be published at the discretion of the editor-in-chief as
Supplemental Digital Content.
- Tables must be created in Word using the table function. Tables created in Excel or informally created in Word with tabbing or spacing will not be accepted.
- Table titles should make the table sufficiently understandable independent of the manuscript. Typically, the title should include type of data, number and type of respondents, place of study, and year of study. Titles should be placed directly above the table, not in a data cell.
- Columns should be clearly labeled and include unit of measure.
- Footnotes: Create one or more table footnotes if information is needed to make the table understandable independent of the text and that information won't easily fit into the table title or data cells. Place footnotes at the bottom of the table, not in a data cell. Define abbreviations in a single table footnote and label it “Abbreviations.” Symbols for all other table footnotes are superscript lowercase letters used in alphabetical order (a, b, c, etc.).
- All tables should be separated from the text file, yet bundled into a common file, with individual tables separated by page breaks.
- All tables must be called out in the text.
Academic Medicine does not redraw or create figures. It is the author’s responsibility (1) to provide high-quality figures that are ready to be published and (2) to make revisions as requested by staff editors during the review and editing processes. Figures created in Word, PowerPoint, or Excel are preferred; those created in other programs must follow the instructions below.
Creating Digital Artwork
- Review the publication requirements for digital artwork on the publisher’s website:
- Refer to the Digital Artwork Guideline Checklist, below, as you create, scan, and save your artwork.
- Upload each figure to Editorial Manager with your manuscript text and other exhibits.
Digital Artwork Guideline Checklist
- Before submitting your digital artwork, make sure it meets the basic format and resolution guidelines below. Note that the staff editors require figure files that can be opened and manipulated during editing. If such files are not provided, the author will be required to make all changes requested by the staff editor.
- Artwork should be saved as TIFF, EPS, or MS Office (DOC, PPT, XLS) files. High resolution PDF files are also acceptable. Do not cut and paste figures into Word; provide figures as DOC files only if they were originally created in Word.
- Crop out any white or black space surrounding the image.
- Diagrams, graphs, and other line art must be provided as live files that can be edited. If that is not possible, they must be vector or saved at a resolution of at least 1200 dpi. If created in an MS Office program, send the native (DOC, PPT, XLS) file.
- Photographs, radiographs, and other halftone images must be saved at a resolution of at least 300 dpi. (This applies only for
Cover Art and
Medicine and the Arts submissions; Academic Medicine does not publish photographs as Figures.)
- Photographs and radiographs with text must be saved as postscript or at a resolution of at least 600 dpi. (This applies only for
Cover Art and
Medicine and the Arts submissions;
Academic Medicine does not publish photographs as Figures.)
- Each figure must be saved and submitted as a separate file. Figures should not be embedded in the manuscript text file.
- Use figures (1) only when their information cannot easily be stated or summarized in the manuscript, and (2) only when that information concerns a central issue of the manuscript.
- Up to 5 exhibits, total, are permitted for Articles, Perspectives, Research Reports, and Literature Reviews; Innovation Reports may have up to 3 exhibits. Additional exhibits may be published at the discretion of the editor-in-chief as
Supplemental Digital Content.
- Figures should be two-dimensional; black-and-white or grayscale; and without gridlines or background shading. X- and Y-axes, if present, must be labeled and should include hatch marks as appropriate.
- Figure legends should make the figure sufficiently understandable independent of the manuscript. Typically, the legend should include type of data, number and type of respondents, place of study, and year of study. Legends should be placed on the last page in the manuscript file, after the reference list.
- All figures must be called out in the text.
- Authors are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of their references and for their in-text citations.
Academic Medicine's reference style for the format and sequence of citations mirrors American Medical Association (AMA) style. (See
American Medical Association Manual of Style: A Guide for Authors and Editors.)
- The list of references should be double spaced and placed at the end of the manuscript.
- Number the references according to the order in which they are first cited in the manuscript (do not list alphabetically). Use superscript numerals in the body of the text to indicate the reference list numbers being cited. Do not use footnotes or endnotes; remove any hyperlinks between the in-text citations and the references.
- Any unpublished sources and personal communications should be included as numbered references rather than noted within the text of the manuscript in parentheses. (This is a departure from AMA style.)
- For guidance, see Examples of Typical References. For more comprehensive examples, please consult the
AMA style guide and review published reference lists in recent issues of the journal.
Structured Disclosures: Acknowledgments, Funding, Disclaimers, Ethical Approval
All articles published in
Academic Medicine must include a structured disclosures section at the end of the text, before the reference list, using the category headings specified below. Each category should appear as a separate paragraph in the following order:
- Acknowledgments: Write author acknowledgments in the third person ("The authors wish to thank..."), or indicate "None."
- Funding/Support: List any external funding, including grant names or numbers, or indicate "None." If required by the funder, include a statement on how readers can access the underlying research materials (e.g. data, samples, models).
- Other disclosures: List any potential conflicts of interests for author(s) of this manuscript that fit
Academic Medicine's Authorial Conflict of Interest Policy, or indicate "None."
- Ethical approval: For manuscripts involving studies or evaluations of human participants, either (1) state that ethical approval has been granted (or waived) for studies involving human subjects, provide the name of the reviewing body, and include the date and reference number; or (2) indicate "Not applicable." Please note that program descriptions that include an evaluative component may require ethical approval or exemption from the authors’ IRB(s). For more information, review Ethical Approval for Studies Involving Human Participants and see the journal’s
resource on ethical issues to consider.
- Disclaimer: Write any disclaimer in the third person, or indicate "None."
- Previous presentations: Report previous presentation of materials in a different form, such as at a conference, with date(s) and location(s), or indicate "None."
Authors may also include information about accessing the raw data used in their analyses. This is completely optional and can be added at the author’s discretion. If you wish to include such information, create a separate category:
- Data sharing: Additional data can be accessed via XXX at [URL] with the doi:XXX.
Supplemental Digital Content (SDC)
Authors may submit SDC as part of a manuscript submission via Editorial Manager to be considered for online posting. SDC may include standard media such as text documents, graphs, tables, figures, audio, video, etc. On the Attach Files page of the submission process, please select Supplemental Digital Content for your uploaded file as the Submission Item. If an article with SDC is accepted, the publisher’s staff will create a URL for the SDC file. The URL will be placed in the call-out within the article. The author is responsible for the accuracy and content of SDC files, which are not edited by journal staff or by the publisher’s staff; they will be presented digitally as submitted. For a list of all available file types and detailed instructions, please see the publisher’s
Author Checklist for Supplemental Digital Content.
SDC items must be numbered and cited consecutively in the text of the submitted manuscript. Regardless of their structure, all SDC items should be called Supplemental Digital Appendices. Citations in the text should use the full name of the item including the sequential list number (e.g., Supplemental Digital Appendix 1, Supplemental Digital Appendix 2, etc.), and provide a description of the supplemental content. All descriptive text for audio or video files should be included in the call-out as it will not appear elsewhere in the article.
- The complete survey is available as Supplemental Digital Appendix 1.
- We performed many tests on the degrees of flexibility in the elbow (see video, Supplemental Digital Appendix 2, which demonstrates elbow flexibility) and found our results inconclusive.
SDC File Requirements
All acceptable file types are permissible up to 10 MBs. For audio or video files and any files greater than 10 MBs, authors should first query the journal office for approval. For a list of all available file types and detailed instructions, please visit
"Uniform Requirements" and
Academic Medicine Format
Academic Medicine will consider manuscripts prepared according to:
Academic Medicine 's specific requirements as outlined in these instructions, or
- The "Uniform Requirements for Articles Submitted to Biomedical Journals"
(http://www.icmje.org). The Uniform Requirements is a set of consensus guidelines agreed to by approximately 500 English-language biomedical journals. Participating journals will consider all manuscripts that conform to the Uniform Requirements even though each journal has different specific requirements for format—in other words, the journal will not refuse to consider a manuscript merely because it does not conform to that journal's specific requirements (e.g., for references, table format, or organization) if the manuscript is prepared according to the Uniform Requirements.
invites a revision of or accepts a manuscript prepared according to the Uniform Requirements, the author must then revise the manuscript to meet
's specific requirements (reference style, for example) as directed by a staff editor.
Submitting a Manuscript
- Manuscripts must be electronically submitted via
Editorial Manager, the journal's online submission system. After logging into your author account, click Submit a New Manuscript and begin filling in the required information.
- First-time users: Please click the Register button on the Editorial Manager log-in page and enter the requested information. On successful registration, you will be sent an e-mail indicating your user name and password.
- Your Editorial Manager account user name and password are independent of the user name and password with which you access full-text articles on the journal’s Web site.
- Authors: Please use the same account each time you submit a manuscript. Click LOGIN, then enter your username and password, and click Author Login to access your account. Submit your manuscript according to the instructions given by Editorial Manager. You will be able to track the progress of your manuscript through the system by logging into your account.
- Forgotten password or username: Do not create a new account. If you cannot recall your existing password, follow the prompts on the login screen. If you cannot recall your existing user name, contact the journal office at
- Formatting: Refer to
Preparing a Manuscript: Requirements and Standards for manuscript formatting instructions.
- Questions or problems: For questions related to online submissions, or if you encounter difficulty uploading your manuscript, please contact the journal office at
Editorial Manager requires the following information at the time of submission. Manuscripts will not be considered unless they include the following components:
- Corresponding (submitting) author’s name, full mailing address, telephone number, and e-mail address.
- Name of a backup person (e.g., co-author, assistant), with phone and e-mail information, whom journal staff can contact if the corresponding author cannot be reached.
- The working title of the manuscript.
- A statement that the manuscript has not been previously published and is not under consideration in the same or substantially similar form in any other journal. See
Prior and Duplicate Publication;
- A statement that all those listed as authors are qualified for authorship and that all who are qualified to be authors are listed as authors on the byline. See
- A statement that, to the author's knowledge, no conflict of interest, financial or other, exists. (If a possible conflict exists, the author must describe the circumstances.) See
Authorial Conflict of Interest.
- For revised submissions, an acknowledgment of funding, in whole or in part, specifically by the National Institutes of Health, Wellcome Trust, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Research Council UK, or other funding agencies.
- For any manuscript that includes one or more studies involving human participants, it is the author's responsibility to indicate ethical approval by the appropriate committee (e.g., Institutional Review Board, Research Ethics Board) to conduct such research. See
Ethical Approval for Studies Involving Human Participants.
How Manuscripts Are Processed
Initial Processing. All manuscripts are automatically logged into our tracking system when they are submitted online through
Editorial Manager. Corresponding authors are able to track the decision process by logging into their author account in Editorial Manager.
Initial Review. All manuscripts undergo internal review by the editor-in-chief, deputy editor, associate editors, and staff editors as appropriate.
Peer Review. Some manuscripts are selected after this initial review to be sent to external peer review. Reviewers are required (1) to keep the manuscript confidential; (2) to not make copies of the manuscript or share its content with others without the permission of the editor-in-chief; and (3) to apprise the editor-in-chief of any conflicts or biases that might affect their ability to objectively assess the manuscript. The review process for all manuscripts is "partially masked" or "single blind"—that is, although reviewers can see who the authors of a manuscript are, a reviewer's identity is not revealed to the author or to other reviewers of the same manuscript. However, each peer reviewer will receive a copy of the decision letter for the manuscript that she or he has reviewed.
Publication Decisions. Most decisions are made within 90 days of receipt of the manuscript. Authors are notified of decisions via email. See
Editorial Conflict of Interest for additional information about decision making. Manuscripts receive one of the following decisions:
- Reconsider after Minor Revisions
- Reconsider after Major Revisions
Rejected manuscripts. When a submitted manuscript is not accepted for publication, the editorial office will retain an electronic copy of it. The editor-in-chief reserves the right, however, to discuss the manuscript and its disposition with the editor of another journal if either editor has a reasonable concern that duplicate publication, simultaneous submission, or other inappropriate actions have been taken. Authors may request for the editor-in-chief to reconsider a rejected manuscript by submitting a formal appeal. See
Appeals. Previously rejected manuscript should not be resubmitted for consideration without the editor-in-chief’s approval.
Revisions. Most manuscripts require revisions before they are accepted for publication. Authors receive instructions for revisions in manuscript decision letters, based on feedback from peer reviewers and staff editors.
Editing. All accepted manuscripts are substantively edited for content and overall presentation, not merely for grammar and correct style, so authors should be prepared for further revisions (sometimes extensive) during editing. These revisions reflect detailed critiques of presentation, completeness, clarity, and balance by the editor-in-chief, deputy editor, associate editor, and/or staff editor. Some changes are needed to make content clearer to a broad readership; others are required so that the manuscript will conform to "house style" (that is, to be consistent with rules for standardized terminology, reference style, table style, spelling, and word usage).
The authors are responsible for the accuracy of the final, edited version, which the corresponding author approves on behalf of all authors, either after consulting with all co-authors or by obtaining their advance authority to approve the final version on their behalf. Once the final, approved version is typeset, the authors may not rewrite or revise content (except to correct errors in data or typesetting); therefore, it is essential that the corresponding author ensure the accuracy of the final, edited version before it is sent to the publishing house for final checking and typesetting.
Proofs. Technical production is handled by the journal's publisher, Wolters Kluwer (WK). WK's production editor will send to the corresponding author an e-mail notification that the page proof is ready to download from Editorial Manager. The corresponding author will have about a week to make any corrections and upload corrected proofs to Editorial Manager or notify the WK production editor that no changes are needed. WK also coordinates publication of the journal online and in print.
The corresponding author is responsible for proofreading the typeset materials carefully, and consequently all authors are wholly responsible for the accuracy of the final printed version based on that proof. The corresponding author may correct typographical errors and data errors but may not make discretionary or non-error-related changes to the proof.
Reprints. Authors may order reprints (copies of the article as it appears in the print journal) from WK. An order form for reprints is included in the PDF file with the page proofs. The corresponding author is responsible for submitting all co-authors' reprint orders. If authors decide later that they want reprints, they may obtain them through WK.
For assistance with online submissions via Editorial Manager, or to discuss any aspect of these instructions with editorial staff, email,
Advertising is accepted for the print editions of the journal as well as for the journal’s Web site and eTOC email. See the
Wolters Kluwer Advertising Center for more infornation.