Publication Criteria for Innovation Reports

Mission Statement: Academic Medicine 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.

Relevance to the Journal’s Mission

  • The report highlights first steps toward a larger-scale solution to a challenge facing the academic medicine community by describing an innovative pilot/early-stage initiative at a single institution or reporting preliminary research that defines the challenge and/or lays the groundwork for larger-scale approaches.
  • The report demonstrates that the authors’ work has significant implications for the continued study of the stated problem.
  • The report significantly adds to or enhances the existing literature on the subject in question.

General Criteria

  • The report addresses an approach, topic, question, or problem that has not previously been well documented or studied in depth.
  • The report briefly demonstrates an acceptable rationale, supported by the literature, to illustrate why the innovation/research is important for addressing the problem in the greater community.
  • The report includes a clear statement of purpose or hypothesis of appropriate scope for a 2,000 word manuscript.
  • The text is well written and easy to follow, using appropriate vocabulary and minimal jargon.
  • The report includes a structured disclosure section that reports any acknowledgments, funding/support, other disclosures (including conflicts of interest, if any), ethical approval, disclaimer (if any), and previous presentations.
  • There is no apparent conflict of interest.
  • Prior publication by the author(s) of substantial portions of the innovation description or data is appropriately acknowledged.

For Innovation Reports with a Research or Evaluation Component
Examples may include single-setting quality-improvement interventions, pilot studies, needs assessments, preliminary outcomes on emerging challenges, and other research of limited scope.

  • Define the time period(s), setting(s), and participating population(s) for the intervention.
  • Include a statement of IRB approval/exemption and/or a description of the ethical considerations in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (see our Complete Instructions for Authors for more details).
  • Summarize all methodology, including statistical analyses.
  • Report results using raw numbers in addition to percentages.
  • Discuss the implications of your findings in the context of the larger challenge used to frame your work.
  • Acknowledge the limitations of your research.
  • Suggest next steps for addressing this challenge on a larger scale.

For Innovation Reports Without a Research or Evaluation Component
Examples may include preliminary or single-setting implementations of innovative approaches to widespread challenges and other descriptions of small-scale innovations.

  • Define the time period(s), setting(s), and participating population(s) involved in developing and implementing the innovation.
  • Describe in detail the implementation of the innovation and any criteria intended to assess the innovation’s success.
  • Critically examine the outcomes of the innovation, including whether/how it met stated goals and the implications of the outcomes in the context of the larger challenge used to frame your work.
  • Suggest next steps for addressing this challenge on a larger scale.