​​​​​​​The goal of Medicine®'s review process is to establish an article's technical, scientific and ethical validity. Novelty and potential for impact are not to be considered when assessing a manuscript or providing an editorial recommendation.

The following questions will address the proper criteria to consider when assessing a manuscript for publication.

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?
   The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must hav​​e been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.


2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?
   For manuscripts that report statistics, the Editor requires that the authors provide evidence of statistical consultation (or at least expertise) by either the inclusion of a statistician/epidemiologist among the authors, or in the acknowledgements; a biostatistician may review such manuscripts during the review process.


3. Does the manuscript adhere to standards in this field for data availability?
   Authors must follow field-specific standards for data deposition in publicly available resources and should include accession numbers in the manuscript when relevant. The manuscript should explain what steps have been taken to make data available, particularly in cases where data cannot be publicly deposited.


4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?
   Medicine® does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors below.
   Authors who are not native speakers of English who submit manuscripts to international journals often receive negative comments from referees or editors about the English–language usage in their manuscripts, and these problems can contribute to a decision to reject a paper. To help reduce the possibility of such problems, we strongly encourage such authors consider using Wolters Kluwer Author Services.
   
   Wolters Kluwer, in partnership with Editage, offers a unique range of editorial services to help you prepare a submission-ready manuscript.


5. The paper has not been previously published in another journal
   During the Additional Information section of the submission process, all authors must certify that their manuscript is a unique submission and is not being considered for publication by any other source in any medium. Further, the manuscript has not been published, in part or in full, in any form. Work published or presented as an abstract at a professional meeting will be considered.


6. The paper has performed experiments with the highest ethical standards
   The report of any research involving human beings or experimental subjects must be accompanied by a statement to be included in the Additional Information section of the submission process, indicating the mechanism used for reviewing the ethics of the research conducted.
   
   ​Medicine® is a member of the Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE)


7. The paper adheres to the EQUATOR Network reporting guidelines
   Medicine® article types are based upon key reporting guidelines, as defined by the EQUATOR Network. Authors should prepare their manuscripts in accordance with the appropriate guidelines(s) and/or checklist(s) for each type of article. We ask that authors use the checklist and flow diagram templates for the guidelines outlined below available on Medicine's Editorial Manager Submission site in the "Files & Resources" section of the home page.
   The appropriate checklist (and flow diagram, if applicable) must be included with each submission.
   
   For further information regarding reporting guidelines, authors should consult the EQUATOR Network web site (http://www.equator-network.org), which maintains a useful, up-to-date list of guidelines as they are published, with links to articles and checklists.
   ​

   Clinical Trial/Experimental Study (CONSORT Compliant)
   Reports of randomized trials must conform to the revised CONSORT guidelines and should be submitted with their protocols and a completed CONSORT checklist. All reports of clinical trials must include a summary of previous research findings and explain how the submitted trial affects this summary of previous findings. Cluster randomized trials should be reported according to extended CONSORT guidelines. Randomized trials reporting harms must be described according to extended CONSORT guidelines. All reports of randomized trials should include a section entitled "Randomization and masking" within the methods section. For information regarding CONSORT guidelines, please visit http://www.consort-statement.org.

   Observational Study (STROBE Compliant)*
   Observational research comprises several study designs and many topic areas. The STROBE statement should be used when reporting such research. The STROBE recommendations apply to the three main analytical designs used in observational research: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. The STROBE statement consists of a 22-item checklist. For information regarding STROBE guidelines, please visit http://www.strobe-statement.org.

   *Please note that Medicine® uses a customized version of the STROBE checklist, available only on Medicine's Editorial Manager Submission site​ in the "Files & Resources" section of the home page.

   Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA Compliant)
   Systematic reviews and meta-analyses must be reported according to PRISMA guidelines, an evidence-based minimum set of items created to help authors improve the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. For information regarding PRISMA guidelines, please visit http://www.prisma-statement.org.

   Diagnostic Accuracy Study (STARD Compliant)
   Investigators reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy should adhere to the STARD statement, part of the STARD initiative to improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy, to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in a study (internal validity) and to evaluate a study's generalizability (external validity). The STARD statement consists of a 25-item checklist and recommends the use of a flow diagram to describe the design of the study and the flow of patients. For information regarding STARD guidelines, please visit http://www.stard-statement.org.

   ​​Economic Evaluation Study (CHEERS Compliant)
   Developed by the ISPOR Quality Improvement in Cost-Effectiveness Research Task Force , the CHEERS statement supports the quality, consistency, and transparency of health economic and outcomes research reporting in the biomedical literature. The CHEERS statement includes a 24-item checklist. For more information regarding CHEERS guidelines, please visit http://www.ispor.org/taskforces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp.

   Clinical Case Report (CARE Compliant)
   The CARE guidelines provide a framework to support the need for completeness, transparency and data analysis in case reports and data from the point of care. The main tools of CARE are the CARE Statement, CARE checklist, and a Case Report Writing Template. These products offer a rationale and a standardized format for authors to prepare more complete and transparent case reports. For more information regarding CARE guidelines, please visit http://www.care-statement.org/.