Elsevier QRcode Wechat

  • Publication Recognition

How to Submit a Paper for Publication in a Journal

  • 4 minute read
  • 71.5K views

Table of Contents

Whether you’ve done it before, or not, submitting a paper for publication in a journal is, to say the least, a process that brings great anxiety and stress. After all your hard work for many months, or even years, recognition is finally at your grasp. That is why there no room for mistakes.

What to Expect of the Scientific Publishing Process

If you are a beginner, you might be struggling to know exactly what to do. After all, it is a step-by-step process, sometimes with a lot of players and paperwork involved; it’s not always evident what to do next. An excellent, high-quality manuscript is the best way to give a good impression from the beginning, putting your paper on the right track for a successful submission. At Elsevier, with our Language Editing services , we not only revise your manuscript, but guarantee there are no text errors.

If, on the other hand, you have already published articles, you might have enough experience to know that each paper submission in a journal is different. Either the journal is different, or the context has changed, or the peers are new. You never know what can go right or wrong, other than the variable that lies under your control – that the manuscript is error-free and spot-on for successful acceptance. In this case, you might consider Elsevier’s professional Language Editing services to amend your text to the target journal’s requirements, helping you focus on other projects.

Scientific Paper Submission. Are you ready? Let’s go!

For many researchers, putting their paper through the professional journal submission process is stressful. Here is a simple to-do list which might help you go through all of it with some peace of mind:

  • Use an external editing service, such as Elsevier’s Author Services if you need assistance with language.
  • Free e-learning modules on preparing your manuscript can be found on Researcher Academy.
  • Mendeley makes your life easier by helping you organize your papers, citations and references, accessing them in the cloud on any device, wherever you are.
  • Do not rush submitting your article for publication Carefully re-read and revise your manuscript. Re-reading is essential in the research field and helps identify the most common problems and shortcomings in the manuscript, which might otherwise be overlooked. Often, reading your text out loud will uncover more errors than reading silently to yourself. If you are doubtful about the quality of your text, consider Elsevier’s Professional Language Editing services . Our professional team is trained to provide you with an optimal text for successful submission.
  • Read the journal’s aims and scope to make sure they match your paper.
  • Check whether you can submit – some journals are invitation only.
  • Use the journal’s metrics to measure its impact. In fact, you can also check other additional info – like speed and reach to understand if it’s the right one for you.
  • If you’re a post doc, check out our free access program.
  • Read the aims and scope and author guidelines of your target journal carefully Once you think your manuscript is ready for submission, the next important step is to read the aims and scope of the journals in your target research area. Doing so will improve the chances of having your manuscript accepted for publishing.
  • Submit a cover letter with the manuscript Never underestimate the importance of a cover letter addressed to the editor or editor-in-chief of the target journal. A good cover letter should underline 3 main aspects: the main theme of the paper, its originality/novelty and the relevance of the manuscript to the target journal.
  • Make a good first impression with your title and abstract The title and abstract are incredibly important components of a manuscript as they are the first elements a journal editor sees. They create interest and curiosity about the whole work.

Now, what happens if your paper gets rejected by the journal ? It is, by no means, the end of the world. There are very real steps you can take to ultimately get published in a reputable journal.

The Science of Article Publishing

Article publishing is every researcher’s aim. It brings visibility and recognition, essential factors for those who intend to build a full career in research. However, most scientists feel handicapped or lost when it comes to conveying their findings or ideas to others. For many, it can be difficult to re-format a certain type of text to another, be aware of formatting requirements and translate their work into visually appealing outcomes. Additionally, keeping track of all the steps needed to submit an article for publication can be overwhelming and take too much time that could be spent doing new research.

At Elsevier, we believe everyone should be doing what they do best: in this case, leave research for scientists and leave the science of turning the best ideas into excellent quality text to our professionals.

Language Editing Services by Elsevier Author Services:

Find more about How to Submit a Paper for Publication in a Journal on Pinterest:

How-to-write-a-journal-article-from-a-thesis

  • Publication Process

How to Write a Journal Article from a Thesis

Looking for Medical Editing Services - Elsevier

  • Manuscript Review

Looking for Medical Editing Services

You may also like.

PowerPoint Presentation of Your Research Paper

How to Make a PowerPoint Presentation of Your Research Paper

What is a good H-index

What is a Good H-index?

What is a corresponding author?

What is a Corresponding Author?

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings

Submission Portal

Submit to the world's largest public repository of biological and scientific information

Type a few words about the sequence data you are submitting and select an option to learn more. You can also browse submission information below.

What do you want to submit?

Enter a few words about your sequence data.

Suggested tools

SRA accepts unassembled reads from high throughput sequencing platforms. Submitted data files should generally be minimally processed and include per-base quality scores.

Submit unassembled reads of SARS-CoV-2 with BioProject, BioSample, metadata and NGS files.

GEO accepts raw data, processed data and metadata for gene expression and epigenomics datasets generated by high-throughput sequencing and microarray technologies.

Submit assembled complete or incomplete/draft prokaryotic and eukaryotic genomes. Not for viral, phage, or single locus sequences (for example: 16S rRNA). Submit those to regular GenBank .

Computationally assembled transcribed RNA sequences representing a transcriptome derived from sequence reads submitted to Sequence Read Archive (SRA).

Submit ribosomal RNA (rRNA), rRNA-ITS, SARS-CoV-2, Influenza, Norovirus, Dengue, metazoan COX1 or eukaryotic nuclear mRNA

Submit assembled reads of SARS-CoV-2 with FASTA files and source metadata. Annotation for SARS-CoV-2 is not required.

Eukaryotic nuclear mRNA (fill out CDS and UTR feature annotations in a web form, or upload protein translations for automated CDS annotation; limit 500 sequences)

Eukaryotic nuclear mRNA (provide feature annotations by uploading a feature table), other mRNAs

Submit genomic DNA, organelle, ncRNA, plasmids, other viruses, phages, mRNA and synthetic constructs.

Microarray data from clinical studies that require controlled access.

Information on human sequence variation and relationship to human health.

Submit the electronic version of a peer-reviewed manuscript for inclusion in PubMed Central.

Explore clinicial studies conducted around the world.

Large-scale sequencing projects for an individual loci are taken in GenBank & Sequence Read Archive (SRA).

Submit BioNano maps, Beta-lactamase gene, and PacBio methylation data.

NCBI takes data capturing experimental or inferential results supporting annotation dervied from GenBank primary data.

Small human genomic variation: single nucleotide, insertions, deletions, and microsatellites.

Genetic tests for inherited & somatic genetic variations, including arrays and multiplex panels.

Automatically create a BioProject and BioSample during sequence data submission.

No results found

We need a little more information. Add to your description above, indicating sequence data type and/or whether your data is assembled, unassembled or expression data.

GenBank is the world's largest nucleotide archive containing sequences from all branches of life. The archive is a foundation for medical and biological discovery.

Submit assembled SARS-CoV-2 , Influenza, Norovirus, Dengue virus, rRNA, rRNA-ITS, metazoan COX1, Eukaryotic nuclear mRNA sequences.

Submit genomic DNA, organelle, ncRNA, plasmids, other viruses, phages, mRNA, synthetic constructs.

Submit assembled eukaryotic and prokaryotic genomes (WGS or Complete).

Sequence Read Archive (SRA)

SRA is the largest publicly-available repository of high throughput sequencing data. The archive accepts data from all branches of life as well as metagenomic and environmental surveys.

Submit unassembled, high throughput sequencing reads

SARS-CoV-2 submission instructions

Other Tools

Submit computationally assembled, transcribed RNA sequences after submitting unassembled reads to SRA. Learn more

Submit RNA-seq, ChIP-seq, and other types of gene expression and epigenomics datasets. Learn more

BioProject & BioSample

Choose a tool above if submitting sequence data. Learn more

Sequence Submission FAQ

What is an accession number.

An accession number in bioinformatics is a unique identifier given to a DNA or protein sequence record to allow for tracking of different versions of that sequence record and the associated sequence over time in a single data repository. Because of its relative stability, accession numbers can be utilized as foreign keys for referring to a sequence object, but not necessarily to a unique sequence. All sequence information repositories implement the concept of "accession number" but might do so with subtle variation.

What happens after my data is submitted?

Please read the NLM GenBank and SRA Data Processing document which describes how sequence data are processed and made available to the public, responsibilities of the data submitter, responsibilities of NCBI, and defines data status. You may write to [email protected] if you have questions about your submitted data or if you have questions about the document.

Medical Genetics & Variation Tools

Submit clinical data, small & large human genomics variants, and genotype & phenotype data.

Other Resources

  • Clinical Trials
  • Manuscripts

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

  • Knowledge Base
  • Research paper

How to Write a Research Paper | A Beginner's Guide

A research paper is a piece of academic writing that provides analysis, interpretation, and argument based on in-depth independent research.

Research papers are similar to academic essays , but they are usually longer and more detailed assignments, designed to assess not only your writing skills but also your skills in scholarly research. Writing a research paper requires you to demonstrate a strong knowledge of your topic, engage with a variety of sources, and make an original contribution to the debate.

This step-by-step guide takes you through the entire writing process, from understanding your assignment to proofreading your final draft.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

upload-your-document-ai-proofreader

Table of contents

Understand the assignment, choose a research paper topic, conduct preliminary research, develop a thesis statement, create a research paper outline, write a first draft of the research paper, write the introduction, write a compelling body of text, write the conclusion, the second draft, the revision process, research paper checklist, free lecture slides.

Completing a research paper successfully means accomplishing the specific tasks set out for you. Before you start, make sure you thoroughly understanding the assignment task sheet:

  • Read it carefully, looking for anything confusing you might need to clarify with your professor.
  • Identify the assignment goal, deadline, length specifications, formatting, and submission method.
  • Make a bulleted list of the key points, then go back and cross completed items off as you’re writing.

Carefully consider your timeframe and word limit: be realistic, and plan enough time to research, write, and edit.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

  • Academic style
  • Vague sentences
  • Style consistency

See an example

research paper submission

There are many ways to generate an idea for a research paper, from brainstorming with pen and paper to talking it through with a fellow student or professor.

You can try free writing, which involves taking a broad topic and writing continuously for two or three minutes to identify absolutely anything relevant that could be interesting.

You can also gain inspiration from other research. The discussion or recommendations sections of research papers often include ideas for other specific topics that require further examination.

Once you have a broad subject area, narrow it down to choose a topic that interests you, m eets the criteria of your assignment, and i s possible to research. Aim for ideas that are both original and specific:

  • A paper following the chronology of World War II would not be original or specific enough.
  • A paper on the experience of Danish citizens living close to the German border during World War II would be specific and could be original enough.

Note any discussions that seem important to the topic, and try to find an issue that you can focus your paper around. Use a variety of sources , including journals, books, and reliable websites, to ensure you do not miss anything glaring.

Do not only verify the ideas you have in mind, but look for sources that contradict your point of view.

  • Is there anything people seem to overlook in the sources you research?
  • Are there any heated debates you can address?
  • Do you have a unique take on your topic?
  • Have there been some recent developments that build on the extant research?

In this stage, you might find it helpful to formulate some research questions to help guide you. To write research questions, try to finish the following sentence: “I want to know how/what/why…”

A thesis statement is a statement of your central argument — it establishes the purpose and position of your paper. If you started with a research question, the thesis statement should answer it. It should also show what evidence and reasoning you’ll use to support that answer.

The thesis statement should be concise, contentious, and coherent. That means it should briefly summarize your argument in a sentence or two, make a claim that requires further evidence or analysis, and make a coherent point that relates to every part of the paper.

You will probably revise and refine the thesis statement as you do more research, but it can serve as a guide throughout the writing process. Every paragraph should aim to support and develop this central claim.

A research paper outline is essentially a list of the key topics, arguments, and evidence you want to include, divided into sections with headings so that you know roughly what the paper will look like before you start writing.

A structure outline can help make the writing process much more efficient, so it’s worth dedicating some time to create one.

Your first draft won’t be perfect — you can polish later on. Your priorities at this stage are as follows:

  • Maintaining forward momentum — write now, perfect later.
  • Paying attention to clear organization and logical ordering of paragraphs and sentences, which will help when you come to the second draft.
  • Expressing your ideas as clearly as possible, so you know what you were trying to say when you come back to the text.

You do not need to start by writing the introduction. Begin where it feels most natural for you — some prefer to finish the most difficult sections first, while others choose to start with the easiest part. If you created an outline, use it as a map while you work.

Do not delete large sections of text. If you begin to dislike something you have written or find it doesn’t quite fit, move it to a different document, but don’t lose it completely — you never know if it might come in useful later.

Paragraph structure

Paragraphs are the basic building blocks of research papers. Each one should focus on a single claim or idea that helps to establish the overall argument or purpose of the paper.

Example paragraph

George Orwell’s 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language” has had an enduring impact on thought about the relationship between politics and language. This impact is particularly obvious in light of the various critical review articles that have recently referenced the essay. For example, consider Mark Falcoff’s 2009 article in The National Review Online, “The Perversion of Language; or, Orwell Revisited,” in which he analyzes several common words (“activist,” “civil-rights leader,” “diversity,” and more). Falcoff’s close analysis of the ambiguity built into political language intentionally mirrors Orwell’s own point-by-point analysis of the political language of his day. Even 63 years after its publication, Orwell’s essay is emulated by contemporary thinkers.

Citing sources

It’s also important to keep track of citations at this stage to avoid accidental plagiarism . Each time you use a source, make sure to take note of where the information came from.

You can use our free citation generators to automatically create citations and save your reference list as you go.

APA Citation Generator MLA Citation Generator

The research paper introduction should address three questions: What, why, and how? After finishing the introduction, the reader should know what the paper is about, why it is worth reading, and how you’ll build your arguments.

What? Be specific about the topic of the paper, introduce the background, and define key terms or concepts.

Why? This is the most important, but also the most difficult, part of the introduction. Try to provide brief answers to the following questions: What new material or insight are you offering? What important issues does your essay help define or answer?

How? To let the reader know what to expect from the rest of the paper, the introduction should include a “map” of what will be discussed, briefly presenting the key elements of the paper in chronological order.

The major struggle faced by most writers is how to organize the information presented in the paper, which is one reason an outline is so useful. However, remember that the outline is only a guide and, when writing, you can be flexible with the order in which the information and arguments are presented.

One way to stay on track is to use your thesis statement and topic sentences . Check:

  • topic sentences against the thesis statement;
  • topic sentences against each other, for similarities and logical ordering;
  • and each sentence against the topic sentence of that paragraph.

Be aware of paragraphs that seem to cover the same things. If two paragraphs discuss something similar, they must approach that topic in different ways. Aim to create smooth transitions between sentences, paragraphs, and sections.

The research paper conclusion is designed to help your reader out of the paper’s argument, giving them a sense of finality.

Trace the course of the paper, emphasizing how it all comes together to prove your thesis statement. Give the paper a sense of finality by making sure the reader understands how you’ve settled the issues raised in the introduction.

You might also discuss the more general consequences of the argument, outline what the paper offers to future students of the topic, and suggest any questions the paper’s argument raises but cannot or does not try to answer.

You should not :

  • Offer new arguments or essential information
  • Take up any more space than necessary
  • Begin with stock phrases that signal you are ending the paper (e.g. “In conclusion”)

There are four main considerations when it comes to the second draft.

  • Check how your vision of the paper lines up with the first draft and, more importantly, that your paper still answers the assignment.
  • Identify any assumptions that might require (more substantial) justification, keeping your reader’s perspective foremost in mind. Remove these points if you cannot substantiate them further.
  • Be open to rearranging your ideas. Check whether any sections feel out of place and whether your ideas could be better organized.
  • If you find that old ideas do not fit as well as you anticipated, you should cut them out or condense them. You might also find that new and well-suited ideas occurred to you during the writing of the first draft — now is the time to make them part of the paper.

The goal during the revision and proofreading process is to ensure you have completed all the necessary tasks and that the paper is as well-articulated as possible. You can speed up the proofreading process by using the AI proofreader .

Global concerns

  • Confirm that your paper completes every task specified in your assignment sheet.
  • Check for logical organization and flow of paragraphs.
  • Check paragraphs against the introduction and thesis statement.

Fine-grained details

Check the content of each paragraph, making sure that:

  • each sentence helps support the topic sentence.
  • no unnecessary or irrelevant information is present.
  • all technical terms your audience might not know are identified.

Next, think about sentence structure , grammatical errors, and formatting . Check that you have correctly used transition words and phrases to show the connections between your ideas. Look for typos, cut unnecessary words, and check for consistency in aspects such as heading formatting and spellings .

Finally, you need to make sure your paper is correctly formatted according to the rules of the citation style you are using. For example, you might need to include an MLA heading  or create an APA title page .

Scribbr’s professional editors can help with the revision process with our award-winning proofreading services.

Discover our paper editing service

Checklist: Research paper

I have followed all instructions in the assignment sheet.

My introduction presents my topic in an engaging way and provides necessary background information.

My introduction presents a clear, focused research problem and/or thesis statement .

My paper is logically organized using paragraphs and (if relevant) section headings .

Each paragraph is clearly focused on one central idea, expressed in a clear topic sentence .

Each paragraph is relevant to my research problem or thesis statement.

I have used appropriate transitions  to clarify the connections between sections, paragraphs, and sentences.

My conclusion provides a concise answer to the research question or emphasizes how the thesis has been supported.

My conclusion shows how my research has contributed to knowledge or understanding of my topic.

My conclusion does not present any new points or information essential to my argument.

I have provided an in-text citation every time I refer to ideas or information from a source.

I have included a reference list at the end of my paper, consistently formatted according to a specific citation style .

I have thoroughly revised my paper and addressed any feedback from my professor or supervisor.

I have followed all formatting guidelines (page numbers, headers, spacing, etc.).

You've written a great paper. Make sure it's perfect with the help of a Scribbr editor!

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

Is this article helpful?

Other students also liked.

  • Writing a Research Paper Introduction | Step-by-Step Guide
  • Writing a Research Paper Conclusion | Step-by-Step Guide
  • Research Paper Format | APA, MLA, & Chicago Templates

More interesting articles

  • Academic Paragraph Structure | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples
  • Checklist: Writing a Great Research Paper
  • How to Create a Structured Research Paper Outline | Example
  • How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples
  • How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips
  • How to Write Topic Sentences | 4 Steps, Examples & Purpose
  • Research Paper Appendix | Example & Templates
  • Research Paper Damage Control | Managing a Broken Argument
  • What Is a Theoretical Framework? | Guide to Organizing

What is your plagiarism score?

Banner

Guide to Getting Published in Journals

  • Why publish in journals?
  • Identifying potential journals
  • Creating a journal comparison spreadsheet
  • Aims & Scope
  • Editorial Board
  • How different journals approach peer review
  • Different open access models
  • Interpreting traditional metrics like the Impact Factor
  • Alternative metrics
  • Ethics and malpractice statements
  • Recognising and avoiding predatory journals
  • Instructions for authors
  • Submitting your paper

Introduction

You have worked through your list of journals, investigating all your criteria and found the journal that is best suited to your paper and the goals you have for it. It is now time for you to submit!

In this section, we will prepare you for what to expect when submitting to a journal, give some insights into the peer review process, how to respond to requests for revisions and resubmit a paper, and what steps to take should you receive a rejection decision.

Submitting a paper

Make sure you have prepared your paper according to the instructions for authors . Double-check the journal’s requirements with your article to be certain.

If you need to include a cover letter with your submission, you should address the editor by formal name (e.g. Dear Professor Name---) and include the name of the journal but make sure you use the correct one (especially if this is your second-choice journal)!

In the letter, explain why your article is suitable for that journal and how your paper will contribute to furthering its aims & scope. Pitch the value of your article, describing the main theme, the contribution your paper makes to existing knowledge, and its relationship to any relevant articles published in the journal. You should not repeat the abstract in the letter. Include information not typically mentioned in a manuscript.

You may also be requested by the journal to suggest some reviewers for your paper. Good sources for these include authors cited in your references and editorial board members from the journal, or from other journals in the field. You should not suggest anyone that you would have a conflict of interest with, such as co-workers.

You should also make some formal declarations regarding the originality of your work, that you have no conflicts of interest, and that all co-authors (if you have any) agree to the submission.

The review process

As we discussed in the earlier module on peer review , there are a wide range of timeframes over which your review process may be conducted.

It may take several months for the journal to complete the review process, which typically involves:

  • Reading the article and deciding whether to send it for review.
  • Acquiring sufficient reviewers and receiving all feedback.
  • Assessing the reviews and rendering a decision on the paper.

Acquiring reviewers and then receiving those reviews back is the longest part of the process. It is very much dependent on the availability of academics, and is not an especially predictable process.

Journals which use web-based reviewing platforms often feature a status for each submission that authors can check. If this status has not changed for some time, in most cases, you will be able to send the journal administrator or editor an email. Some journals make their review times publicly available, giving you a good idea of how long their process might take, and when it may be appropriate to ask for an update. If you do not know what to expect, we suggest waiting around 2 months before asking for an update.

Desk reject

Hopefully you will have submitted your article to the perfect journal, exactly as they have requested, and your article will be sent for reviewing. However, some papers are rejected without being sent for peer review – this is commonly known as a desk reject – and of course, you want to avoid this happening to your paper.

To help you understand and minimise the risk, here are some of the most common reasons for desk rejection:

TECHNICAL SCREENING

  • Language or writing issues which make it too hard for the editor to understand the paper.
  • Similarity checking revealing a large amount of exact matching or plagiarised content.
  • Formatting is not in the journal style
  • Word count is too high
  • Figures & Tables are incomplete or difficult to read
  • References are incomplete

AIMS & SCOPE AND CONTENT

  • Outside Aims & Scope.
  • Hypothesis or purpose is not sufficiently clear.
  • Methods are unclear or flawed.
  • Results do not support conclusions.
  • Incremental addition to knowledge.
  • References miss key or recent literature.

Similarity (plagarism) checking

Many journals conduct some form of checking of article text to go alongside the reviewing of papers. Software such as iThenticate, Turnitin, PlagScan, among many others, are used either to look for similarities in text between the submitted article and published material available online.

These platforms cannot, by themselves, determine whether text has been plagiarised, only provide a score of how similar passages of text are to existing material. For this reason, these programs tend to be referred to as ‘similarity checker’, not ‘plagiarism checker’.

Papers which are processed and return high scores are likely to be investigated to determine whether the similarity does appear to be deliberate plagiarism. How a journal deals with such a paper depends on their own policies and procedures, and the extent of the plagiarism detected.

Many journals will refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Guidelines and Flowchart for dealing with “Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript”. See our module on Ethics and Malpractice Statements for more detail on COPE and journal ethics.

These similarity checking programs may be used at different stages of the process, depending on journal policy and situation. Some journals may screen all papers on submission, some only when some concerns are raised by the editor on first read or by referees during review.

Receiving a decision after peer review

Once the editor has received all comments, feedback and recommendations from the reviewers, they will make a decision on the paper. These decisions may be called by different terms, but will usually fit into one of four categories:

  • Accept – it is very rare than a first submission will be accepted outright, without any changes being requested.
  • Revisions likely to result in acceptance – This can be a ‘minor revisions’ decision, or a more major revision, but in both cases the editor shows positivity towards a final acceptance.
  • Revisions with an uncertain outcome – Often referred to as ‘major revisions’, or ‘reject, revise and resubmit’, these decisions request extensive revisions, reinterpretations of information, or deeper, more thorough explanations of details, which ultimately may not be acceptable for the journal even when responses to all reviewer comments have been provided.
  • Reject – The paper is unsuitable and/or unacceptable for the journal in this form, or any alternate version. With a reject decision, a revision is not invited, and should an author resubmit the paper as a new version, it may be immediately rejected.

If you are invited to revise your paper, make sure you are methodical in your approach to tackling the revisions requested by the editor.

  • Read the letter and put it aside for a day or two. However well-framed the reviewer’s comments and criticisms of your paper, there is always a chance you may feel protective over the original paper you spent so much time writing. It is not always easy to receive criticism, so don’t rush to take action immediately.   Give yourself a few days to digest the reviewer comments before taking the next steps with your revision.
  • In most cases, it is likely that you will be able to follow the recommendations of the reviewers.
  • Organising the reviewer comments by ease of response or your ability to complete. For example, on a spectrum of requested revisions, spelling and grammar corrections would be at the easiest end, through to conducting extra experiments at the more difficult (or impossible) end.
  • Numbering each of the comments from each reviewer.
  • Taking a structured approach to revisions will also make it easier to respond. You will need to include a point-by-point response letter, detailing how you have addressed each reviewer point.   You do not need to perform every change requested of the reviewers, but you should provide a response as to why you have not done so. It may be that reviewers request conflicting things, or the additional experiments they suggest are not possible.
  • If you disagree with a comment made by one of the reviewers, try to provide an evidence-based explanation in your response.
  • Try to complete your revisions by the requested deadline. If you think you will need longer, let the journal know. They will probably be happy to grant you the extension, and it is courteous to keep them updated. In addition, some online review platforms may prevent you from submitting your revision once the due date expires, so asking for an extension will avoid this problem too.
  • Once your revisions are complete and you have detailed all your responses in your letter, check with any co-authors that they are all happy with the final versions before re-submitting to the journal.
  • For journals with online submission forms, be sure to submit as the revision of your original article so that it is easy for the editorial office and Editor to follow. Amend any relevant fields (such as title, abstract) that have changed during your revision process, provide related cover letters, revised manuscript files and reviewer response letter in the appropriate places in the forms.
  • Revisions may be sent to the previous reviewers to re-assess, or the Editor may make a decision independently. In some cases, new reviewers may be sought. As with the first submission, once all reviews have been submitted, the Editor will make a decision from the same set of categories and hopefully your paper will be accepted in just one or two rounds of resubmission. Some very strict journals will not invite a second speculative revision, but others may be more lenient and continue to invite revisions until the editor is satisfied of a decision to either Accept or Reject.

Having a submission rejected from your first-choice journal is something of an inevitability - every researcher has been rejected at some point in their careers. Even some of what we now consider ground-breaking and foundational studies were rejected from their first-choice journals. Hans Krebs' paper on citric acid cycle - the Krebs cycle – was rejected from Nature in 1937, and Kary Mullis’ first paper on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was rejected from Science in 1993, before going on to win the Nobel Prize. Rejection happens, quite literally, to the best of us.

If this should happen to you, try not be too disappointed. It does not mean there is no future for your paper. As with our revision recommendation, set aside the letter once you have read it and give yourself some time before tackling it.

When you are ready to proceed with your paper, consider the following steps:

  • From your shortlist of suitable journals for your paper, you might now consider your second-choice journal.
  • Another option to consider may be ‘Cascade Journals’. Some publishers now offer a chance to publish in a ‘Cascade journal’. These are usually open access titles, published by the same organisation. Some Cascade journals will require payment of an Article Processing Charge (APC). You may or may not be offered a reduced rate as part of the transfer to the related title. It is likely that the journal will transfer the reviews received at your first-choice journal to the ‘cascade journal’. This is intended to speed up the review process, or may mean the editor does not have to conduct any reviewing at all, but it does not guarantee acceptance at this journal. The editor will still need to make a decision as to whether your paper is suitable for the journal.
  • Firstly, it is likely that the comments the reviewers provided will help you improve aspects of your paper such as focusing the aims and purpose of your paper, sharpening the inferences made from your results, fine tuning the message you wish to convey, or improving the readability among many other positive edits.
  • Secondly, even in reasonably large research fields, there is a chance that the same reviewers who saw your paper at the first journal will be asked to review it at the new journal. It will not reflect favourably on you if you have not acknowledged or considered any of their comments from the first round of reviews.

When submitting the new version of your paper to your second journal, there is no need to include a letter responding to the original reviewers’ comments.

  • Check that the format of your paper meets the submission criteria of the new journal and make the appropriate amendments (remember, failure to comply with a journals Instructions For Authors is one of the most common causes of immediate rejection).
  • If you wish, write a cover letter to the new journal, explaining the relevance of your paper to the journal, and be sure to address the correct journal editor and journal name.
  • Complete your new submission to the journal.

After acceptance, you will usually be required to sign copyright or licensing documents, to give the publisher the rights to publish your article. Be sure to read these documents thoroughly to understand what you are signing.

If you would like to publish your article Open Access, Article Processing Charges are usually requested at this stage, and go hand-in-hand with the license you select, if such options are available.

Accepted papers are usually sent to a production team to format into journal style. Some have dedicated professional typesetters, copyeditors and proof-readers. For some journals, the Editors may contribute to these roles.

Some journals publish the Accepted version online within just a few days, to make it officially available before the final ‘Version of Record’ journal-styled PDF is made available.

Some journals publish articles online as soon as they are ready, into a queue of early publication manuscripts. Other journals hold all articles offline until each issue is full and publish each issue according to a defined schedule (for example, 4 times per year).

There are many different ways in which publishers and journals manage their post-acceptance stages and publication schedules. If the information about your article is not provided to you, you may contact the journal office for an update.

These are some of the more common processes and procedures that you will encounter and come to rely on throughout your research publishing career, but there may be many more variations to deal with. The submission process can be a time-consuming, frustrating experience, but with these tips, and building up your own repertoire of tools, resources and techniques, you will soon master the arts of submission and peer review.

Good luck with all your future submissions!

Further resources

Hervé Stolowy (2017) Letter from the Editor: Why Are Papers Desk Rejected at European Accounting Review? , European Accounting Review, 26:3, 411-418

  • << Previous: Instructions for authors
  • Last Updated: Sep 18, 2023 1:28 PM
  • URL: https://ifis.libguides.com/journal-publishing-guide

Instructions for Authors

Contact Monica Mungle for help if edits are needed to the top section.

Original Investigation

Caring for the critically ill patient, brief report, research letter, systematic review (without meta-analysis), narrative review, special communication, clinical challenge, diagnostic test interpretation, a piece of my mind, letter to the editor, letter in reply.

  • Randomized Clinical Trial
  • Parallel-Design Double-blind Trial
  • Crossover Trial
  • Equivalence and Noninferiority Trial
  • Cluster Trial
  • Nonrandomized Controlled Trial

Meta-analysis

  • Cohort Study
  • Case-Control Study
  • Cross-sectional Study
  • Case Series
  • Economic Evaluation
  • Decision Analytical Model
  • Comparative Effectiveness Research
  • Genetic Association Study
  • Diagnostic/Prognostic Study
  • Quality Improvement Study
  • Survey Study
  • Qualitative Study

Manuscript Submission

Copies of previous editorial and reviewer comments, cover letter, manuscript style, manuscript components, recommended file sizes, manuscript file formats, abbreviations, units of measure, names of drugs, devices, and other products, gene names, symbols, and accession numbers, reproduced and re-created material, statistical methods and data presentation, online-only supplements and multimedia.

What to Expect

Editorial and Peer Review

The jama network advantage.

  • JAMA-Express

Authorship Form and Publishing Agreement

Publication.

  • Postpublication Online Commenting

Reprints/e-Prints

Corrections, previous publication, related manuscripts and reports, and preprints, previous or planned meeting presentation or release of information, embargo policy, research article public access, depositing in repositories, and discoverability.

Editorial Policies for Authors

Authorship and Disclosures

Authorship criteria and contributions, role of the corresponding author, changes in authorship, name change policy, group authorship, conflicts of interest and financial disclosures, funding/support and role of funder/sponsor, data access, responsibility, and analysis, acknowledgment section, equator reporting guidelines, use of causal language, timeliness of data, reporting demographic information for study participants, ethical approval of studies and informed consent, patient identification, personal communications and unpublished data, manuscripts that pose security risks.

Journal Policies, Forms, Resources

Decisions and Management of Editorial Conflicts of Interest

Publishing agreement, unauthorized use.

  • Patient Permission Form
  • AMA Manual of Style
  • EQUATOR Network
  • About This Journal

Contact Information

JAMA , Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, PhD, MD, MAS, Editor in Chief, 330 N Wabash Ave, Chicago, IL 60611-5885; telephone: (312) 464-4444; fax: (312) 464-5824; email: [email protected] . Manuscripts should be submitted online at http://manuscripts.jama.com .

Determine My Article Type

Categories of articles.

Original Investigation full info

Clinical trial Meta-analysis Intervention study Cohort study Case-control study Epidemiologic assessment Survey with high response rate Cost-effectiveness analysis Decision analysis Study of screening and diagnostic tests Other observational study

  • ≤5 tables and/or figures
  • Structured abstract

Data Sharing Statement

Follow EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines

Caring for the Critically Ill Patient full info

Original research reports, preferably clinical trials or systematic reviews that address virtually any aspect of critical illness, from prevention and triage, through resuscitation and acute treatment, to rehabilitation and palliative care.

  • See also requirements for Clinical Trial , Meta-analysis , and Systematic Review

Brief Report full info

Short reports of original studies or evaluations or unique, first-time reports of clinical case series.

It is very rare for this journal to publish case reports.

  • 15 references
  • ≤3 tables and/or figures

Research Letter full info

Concise, focused reports of original research. Can include any of the study types listed under Original Investigation.

  • No more than 7 authors
  • ≤6 references
  • ≤2 small tables and/or figures
  • No Abstract or Key Points

Back to top

Clinical Review and Education

Systematic Review (without meta-analysis) full info

This article type requires a presubmission inquiry. See the "full info" below for requirements and contact information.

Critical assessments of the literature and data sources pertaining to clinical topics, emphasizing factors such as cause, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, or prevention.

Systematic Reviews without meta-analysis are published as Reviews; those with meta-analysis are published as Original Investigations (see Meta-analysis ).

  • 50-75 references
  • A PRISMA-style flow diagram should be included as an online supplement
  • Include a table with ratings of the quality of the studies/evidence
  • Subtitle should be "A Systematic Review"

Narrative Review full info

Up-to-date review for clinicians on a topic of general common interest from the perspective of internationally recognized experts in these disciplines.

The focus should be an update on current understanding of the physiology of the disease or condition, diagnostic consideration, and treatment.

These reviews should address a specific question or issue that is relevant for clinical practice.

  • 2000-3500 words
  • 3-part structured abstract
  • No Key Points
  • Subtitle should be "A Review"

Special Communication full info

This journal publishes very few of these types of articles.

These manuscripts describe an important issue in clinical medicine, public health, health policy, or medical research in a scholarly, thorough, well-referenced, systematic, and evidence-based manner.

  • 50 references
  • ≤4 tables and/or figures
  • Requires a presubmission inquiry

Clinical Challenge full info

Presents an actual patient case with a specific disease or condition with an accompanying clinical image.

  • "What Would You Do Next?" with 4 single-phrase plausible treatment options describing possible courses of action with 1 being preferred
  • Case presentation: 250 words
  • Discussion: 500-600 words
  • ≤10 references
  • 1-2 small figures
  • Patient permission required

Diagnostic Test Interpretation full info

This article requires a presubmission inquiry.

Presentation of the results of a diagnostic test from a single patient with exploration of the clinical application of the test result; intended to help clinicians understand the underlying rationale in ordering tests, interpreting test results, and acting on the diagnostic test findings.

  • How Do You Interpret These Test Results? (or What Would You Do Next?) with 4 plausible responses
  • Case presentation: 200 words
  • Discussion: 650 words

Viewpoint full info

May address virtually any important topic in medicine, public health, research, discovery, prevention, ethics, health policy, or health law and generally are not linked to a specific article.

  • 1200 words (or 1000 words with 1 small table or figure)
  • ≤7 references at submission
  • ≤3 authors, with no more than 2 affiliations per author

A Piece of My Mind full info

Personal vignettes (eg, exploring the dynamics of the patient-physician relationship) taken from wide-ranging experiences in medicine; occasional pieces express views and opinions on the myriad issues that affect the profession.

  • ≤1600 words
  • Patient permission may be needed

Poetry full info

Original poems related to the medical experience, whether from the point of view of a health care worker or patient, or simply an observer.

  • No longer than 44 lines

Correspondence

Letter to the Editor full info

Letters discussing a recent article in this journal should be submitted within 4 weeks of the article's publication in print.

  • ≤5 references (1 of which should be to the recent article)

Letter in Reply full info

Replies by authors of original articles to letters from readers.

Determine My Study Type

Randomized Clinical Trial full info

A trial that prospectively assigns participants to intervention or comparison groups to study the cause-and-effect relationship between an intervention and a health outcome. Interventions include but are not limited to drugs, surgical procedures, devices, behavioral treatments, educational programs, dietary interventions, quality improvement interventions, process-of-care changes, and the like.

  • ≤5 tables and/or figures, including CONSORT flow diagram
  • Subtitle should be "A Randomized Clinical Trial"
  • Trial registration and ID
  • Trial protocol
  • CONSORT checklist
  • Follow CONSORT Reporting Guidelines

Parallel-Design Double-blind Trial full info

A randomized trial that prospectively assigns participants to 2 or more groups to receive different interventions. Participants and those administering the interventions are unaware of which intervention individual participants are receiving.

Crossover Trial full info

A trial in which participants receive more than 1 of the treatments under investigation, usually in a randomly determined sequence, and with a prespecified amount of time (washout period) between sequential treatments.

Equivalence and Noninferiority Trial full info

A trial designed to assess whether the treatment or intervention under study (eg, a new intervention) is no worse than an existing alternative (eg, an active control). In these trials, authors must prespecify a margin of noninferiority that is consistent with all relevant studies and within which the new intervention can be assumed to be no worse than the active control.

Cluster Trial full info

A trial that includes random assignment of groups rather than individuals to intervention and control groups.

Nonrandomized Controlled Trial full info

A trial that prospectively assigns groups or populations to study the efficacy or effectiveness of an intervention but in which the assignment to the intervention occurs through self-selection or administrator selection rather than through randomization. Control groups can be historic, concurrent, or both. This design is sometimes called a quasi-experimental design.

  • ≤5 tables and/or figures, including a trial flow diagram
  • Subtitle should be "A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial"
  • TREND checklist

Meta-analysis full info

A systematic review that includes a statistical technique for quantitatively combining the results of multiple studies that measure the same outcome into a single pooled or summary estimate.

  • Subtitle should include "A Meta-analysis"
  • Follow PRISMA Reporting Guidelines or MOOSE Reporting Guidelines

Cohort Study full info

An observational study that follows a group (cohort) of individuals who are initially free of the outcome of interest. Individuals in the cohort may share some underlying characteristic, such as age, sex, diagnosis, exposure to a risk factor, or treatment.

  • Follow STROBE Reporting Guidelines

Case-Control Study full info

An observational study designed to determine the association between an exposure and outcome in which study participants are selected by outcome. Those with the outcome (cases) are compared with those without the outcome (controls) with respect to an exposure or event. Cases and controls may be matched according to specific characteristics (eg, age, sex, or duration of disease).

Cross-sectional Study full info

An observational study of a defined population at a single point in time or during a specific interval, in which exposure and outcome are ascertained simultaneously.

Case Series full info

An observational study that describes a selected group of participants with similar exposure or treatment and without a control group. A case series may also involve observation of larger units such as groups of hospitals or municipalities, as well as smaller units such as laboratory samples.

  • Follow Reporting Guidelines

Economic Evaluation full info

A study using formal, quantitative methods to compare 2 or more treatments, programs, or strategies with respect to their resource use and expected outcomes. This includes cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, and cost-minimization analyses.

  • Follow CHEERS Reporting Guidelines

Decision Analytical Model full info

A mathematical modeling study that compares consequences of decision options by synthesizing information from multiple sources and applying mathematical simulation techniques, usually with specific software. Reporting should address the relevant non-cost aspects of the CHEERS guideline.

Comparative Effectiveness Research full info

A study that compares different interventions or strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor health conditions to determine which work best for which patients, under what circumstances, and are associated with the greatest benefits and harms.

  • Follow ISPOR Reporting Guidelines

Genetic Association Study full info

A study that attempts to identify and characterize genomic variants that may be associated with susceptibility to multifactorial disease.

  • Follow STREGA Reporting Guidelines

Diagnostic/Prognostic Study full info

A prospective study designed to develop, validate, or update the diagnostic or prognostic accuracy of a test or model.

  • Follow STARD Reporting Guidelines or TRIPOD Reporting Guidelines

Quality Improvement Study full info

A study that uses data to define, measure, and evaluate a health care practice or service to maintain or improve the appropriateness, quality, safety, or value of that practice or service.

  • Follow SQUIRE Reporting Guidelines

Survey Study full info

A survey study includes a representative sample of individuals who are asked to describe their opinions, attitudes, or behaviors. Survey studies should have sufficient response rates (generally ≥60%) and appropriate characterization of nonresponders to ensure that nonresponse bias does not threaten the validity of the findings.

  • Follow AAPOR Best Practices for Survey Research
  • Optional: Survey instrument as supplemental file

Qualitative Study full info

A study based on observation and interview with individuals that uses inductive reasoning and a theoretical sampling model and that focuses on social and interpreted, rather than quantifiable, phenomena and aims to discover, interpret, and describe rather than to test and evaluate. This includes mixed-methods studies that combine quantitative and qualitative designs in a sequential or concurrent manner.

  • Follow SRQR Reporting Guidelines or COREQ Reporting Guidelines

These reports typically include randomized trials (see Clinical Trial ), intervention studies, cohort studies, case-control studies, epidemiologic assessments, other observational studies, surveys with high response rates (see Reports of Survey Research ), cost-effectiveness analyses and decision analyses (see Reports of Cost-effectiveness Analyses and Decision Analyses ), and studies of screening and diagnostic tests (see also Reports of Diagnostic Tests ). Each manuscript should clearly state an objective or hypothesis; the design and methods (including the study setting and dates, patients or participants with inclusion and exclusion criteria and/or participation or response rates, or data sources, and how these were selected for the study); the essential features of any interventions; the main outcome measures; the main results of the study; a discussion section placing the results in context with the published literature and addressing study limitations; and the conclusions and relevant implications for clinical practice or health policy. Data included in research reports must be original and should be as timely and current as possible (see Timeliness of Data ). Follow EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines .

A structured abstract is required; for more information, see instructions for preparing Abstracts for Reports of Original Data . A list of 3 Key Points is required (see guidance on preparing Key Points ). Maximum length: 3000 words of text (not including abstract, tables, figures, acknowledgments, references, and online-only material) with no more than a total of 5 tables and/or figures.

These manuscripts are original research reports, preferably clinical trials, or systematic reviews (see above classifications for manuscript submission requirements by category of article) that address virtually any aspect of critical illness, from prevention and triage, through resuscitation and acute treatment, to rehabilitation and palliative care. Manuscripts that provide new insights into the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of critically ill patients, as well as those that explore pathophysiological, technological, ethical, or other related aspects of critical care medicine, are welcome. Follow EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines . For reports of original data and systematic reviews, a structured abstract is required; see instructions for preparing Abstracts for Reports of Original Data or Abstracts for Reviews . A list of 3 Key Points is required (see guidance on preparing Key Points ). Maximum length: 3000 words of text (not including abstract, tables, figures, acknowledgments, references, and online-only material) with no more than a total of 5 tables and/or figures.

These manuscripts are short reports of original studies or evaluations or unique, first-time reports of clinical case series. Follow EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines . A structured abstract is required; for more information, see instructions for preparing Abstracts for Reports of Original Data . A list of 3 Key Points is required (see guidance on preparing Key Points ). Recommended length: 1200 words (not including abstract, tables, figures, acknowledgments, references, and online-only material) with no more than a total of 3 tables and/or figures and no more than 15 references. Note: It is very rare for this journal to publish case reports.

Research Letters are concise, focused reports of original research. These should not exceed 600 words of text and 6 references and may include up to 2 tables or figures. Online supplementary material is only allowed for brief additional and absolutely necessary methods but not for any additional results or discussion. Research Letters may have no more than 7 authors. The text should include the full name, academic degrees, and a single institutional affiliation for each author and the email address for the corresponding author. Other persons who have contributed to the study may be indicated in an Acknowledgment, with their permission, including their academic degrees, affiliation, contribution to the study, and an indication if compensation was received for their role. Letters must not duplicate other material published or submitted for publication. In general, Research Letters should be divided into the following sections: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. They should not include an abstract or key points, but otherwise should follow all of the guidelines in Manuscript Preparation and Submission Requirements . Letters not meeting these specifications are generally not considered.

This article type requires a presubmission inquiry to [email protected] .

The journal will consider 2 types of review articles:

Systematic Reviews

These types of Review articles differ by the scope and level of analysis of the literature searches and the titles used. Systematic Reviews require a complete systematic search of the literature using multiple databases, covering many years, and grading of the quality of the cited evidence. Narrative Reviews do not require a rigorous literature search but should rely on evidence and should be written by established experts in the field. See below for more detail on each type of Review.

Titles for these Reviews should include a concise description of the main topic. Use specific and not overly broad wording for the title; the type of review should be indicated in the subtitle. For example:

Behavioral Treatment of Obesity: A Systematic Review

Behavioral Treatment of Obesity: A Review (note: the word "narrative" is not included in the subtitle)

Systematic Reviews are critical assessments of the literature and data sources pertaining to clinical topics, emphasizing factors such as cause, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, or prevention. Systematic Reviews without meta-analysis are published as Reviews; those with meta-analysis are published as Original Investigations (see Meta-analysis ). Systematic Reviews should address a specific question or issue that is relevant for clinical practice and provide an evidence-based, balanced, patient-oriented review on a focused topic. Follow EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines .

The basic structure of manuscripts reporting Systematic Reviews should include the following: Abstract (structured abstract of no more than 350 words); Introduction (150-250 words); Methods (150-250 words); Results (1000-1250 words, with the following subsections, if appropriate, depending on the specific question or issue addressed: Pathophysiology, Clinical Presentation, Assessment and Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prognosis); Discussion (1000 words); and Conclusions (2-3 sentences).

Maximum length: 3000 words of text (not including abstract, tables, figures, acknowledgments, references, and online-only material), with no more than a total of 5 tables and/or figures and no more than 50-75 references. For an example of a published Systematic Review, see JAMA . 2014;312(6):631-640 and below for the general structure of a Systematic Review article.

Prospective authors interested in submitting a review manuscript should prepare a detailed outline of the proposed article. There should also be a brief summary of the extent and quality of the literature supporting the proposed review. Alternatively, if a draft of the manuscript has been completed, this can be sent. Prospective authors should also summarize their publication record in the field. Send this information to the editorial office via email to Mary McDermott, MD, at [email protected] .

Specific Components of a Systematic Review

Key Points (75-100 words)

This feature provides a quick structured synopsis of the Review, following 3 key points: Question, Findings, and Meaning. Limit to no more than 100 words. This is different from the Abstract.

Question: What are the most effective medical treatments for adult chronic sinusitis? Findings: In this systematic review, symptoms of chronic sinusitis were improved with saline irrigation and topical corticosteroid therapy compared to no therapy. Compared with placebo, 3-week courses of systemic corticosteroids or oral doxycycline were associated with reduced polyp size, and a 3-month course of macrolide antibiotic was associated with improved symptoms in patients without polyps. Meaning: First-line therapy for chronic sinusitis should begin with daily topical intranasal corticosteroid in conjunction with saline irrigation; subsequent therapies should be based on the patient's polyp status and severity of symptoms.

Abstract (350 words)

A structured abstract is required; Systematic Review articles should include a structured abstract of no more than 350 words using the headings listed below.

Importance: Include 1 or 2 sentences describing the clinical question or issue and its importance in clinical practice or public health. Objective: State the precise primary objective of the review. Indicate whether the review emphasizes factors such as cause, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, or prevention and include information about the specific population, intervention, exposure, and tests or outcomes that are being reviewed. Evidence Review: Describe the information sources used, including the search strategies, years searched, and other sources of material, such as subsequent reference searches of retrieved articles. Methods used for inclusion of identified articles and quality assessment should be explained. Findings: Include a brief summary of the number of articles included, numbers of various types of studies (eg, clinical trials, cohort studies), and numbers of patients/participants represented by these studies. Summarize the major findings of the review of the clinical issue or topic in an evidence-based, objective, and balanced fashion, with the highest-quality evidence available receiving the greatest emphasis. Provide quantitative data. Conclusions and Relevance: The conclusions should clearly answer the questions posed if applicable, be based on available evidence, and emphasize how clinicians should apply current knowledge. Conclusions should be based only on results described in the abstract Findings subsection.

Introduction (150-250 words)

The first 2 to 3 sentences of the Introduction should draw in readers such that they want to continue reading the article and should establish the importance of the Review. Reviews should include the clinical question or issue and its importance for general medical practice, specialty practice, or public health. The first paragraph should provide a general summary of the clinical problem (eg, obesity). The next paragraph should focus on the specific aspect of the clinical problem the article will explore (eg, treatments for obesity). The epidemiology of the disease or condition should be briefly summarized and generally should include disease prevalence and incidence. The third paragraph should discuss exactly what material will be covered in the Review (eg, obesity treatments reported in trials with a minimum follow-up of 2 years including 80% of the original cohort).

Methods/Literature Search (150-250 words)

The literature search should be as current as possible, ideally with end dates within a month or two before manuscript submission. A search of the primary literature should be conducted, including multiple bibliographic databases (eg, PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO). This can be facilitated by collaborating with a medical librarian to help with the search.

Briefly describe characteristics of the literature searched and included in the review, following the PRISMA reporting guidelines , including the bibliographic databases and other sources searched, search terms used, dates included in the search, date the literature search was conducted, screening process, language limitations, and inclusion and exclusion criteria. The rating system used to evaluate the quality of the evidence should be specified (see table below) and the methods used to evaluate quality should be described, including number of quality raters, how agreement on quality ratings was assessed, and how disagreements on quality ratings were resolved.

The highest-quality evidence (eg, randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and high-quality prospective cohort studies) should receive the greatest emphasis. Clinical practice guidelines ordinarily should not be used as a primary component of the evidence base for the systematic review, although relevant guidelines should be addressed in the Discussion section of the article.

The search methods should be described in sufficient detail so the search can be reproduced based on the information provided in the manuscript. A summary of the methods of the literature search including this information should be included in the main article; details can be included in an online-only supplement. A PRISMA-style flow diagram showing this information should also be included as an online-only supplement. In addition, a completed PRISMA checklist should be submitted for the items completed that apply to systematic reviews (the checklist items that apply to meta-analyses do not need to be completed for systematic reviews without meta-analysis). The checklist will be used during review but will not be published.

Results (1000-1250 words)

First, briefly report the results of the literature search, including the number of articles reviewed and included, numbers of various types of studies (eg, clinical trials, cohort studies) included, and the aggregate numbers of patients included in the reviewed studies. Also provide a brief summary of the quality of the evidence. Details of this information can be included in a PRISMA-style flow diagram and table(s).

Next, the subsections listed below should generally appear in the Results sections of most Reviews although all of these subsections may not be necessary for some topics, depending on the specific question or issue addressed. The word counts following each subsection are suggested to assist with keeping the overall Results section limited to 1000-1250 words.

Pathophysiology (150-250 words). Provide a brief overview of the pathophysiology of the disease. The intent is to provide readers with sufficient background information about the underpinnings of a disease to provide context for the rest of the article. Clinical Presentation (150-250 words). Briefly describe the clinical characteristics that result in a patient seeking medical care for the condition or what features of the disease should lead a clinician to evaluate or treat it. Assessment and Diagnosis (250-300 words). Describe the clinical examination for evaluation of the disease and explain the most salient physical examination findings. If laboratory or imaging studies are necessary, provide the sensitivity and specificity and diagnostic accuracy of these tests and consider providing positive and negative likelihood ratios. Sequences of diagnostic tests are best presented as algorithms or in tables. Treatment (250-500 words). Treatments should be based on the most recently available and highest level of evidence. Treatment options should be summarized in the text and presented in detail in tables along with an indication of the strength of evidence supporting the individual treatments. In general, treatment recommendations should be supported by a systematic review of the literature, either performed by the author of the Review or published in the form of a high-quality review or guideline. If possible, the costs for various treatments should be provided. Prognosis (100-150 words). A section outlining the overall prognosis for the condition, once treated, should be included. Discussion (Approximately 1000 words)

Key findings should be summarized in the first paragraph of the Discussion section. All statements made should be supported by evidence. It is very important to not simply list findings from the studies reviewed. This information is best presented in tables. The Discussion should provide a critical synthesis of data and information based on the results of the review, an assessment of the quality of studies summarized, and a description of how studies can be interpreted and used to guide clinical practice. The limitations of the evidence and of the review should be discussed, and gaps in evidence should be addressed. A discussion of controversial or unresolved issues and topics in need of future research also should be included.

Clinical Practice Guidelines: In the Discussion section, describe current clinical practice guidelines, relevant to the topic of the review, if available, and whether the conclusions of this review agree with, or disagree with, the current clinical practice guidelines. If this is done and there is more than 1 guideline, a table should be prepared comparing the major features that differ between the guidelines. Guideline quality should be discussed using the standards outlined for the JAMA Clinical Guidelines Synopsis .

Conclusions

Include a 2- to 3-sentence summary of the major conclusions of the review.

Construct tables that summarize the search results. Tables summarizing treatments should have information organized by category of treatment and then by individual treatments. Columns should include the name of the treatment, strength of evidence supporting the treatment, the treatment's effect (preferably shown as the treatment's effect as compared to control on the measured outcome together with 95% confidence intervals), adverse effects, and very brief comments, if necessary. Lengthy text-based tables should be avoided. Additional or lengthy tables may be published online only, if justified.

Ratings of the quality of the evidence. Tables summarizing evidence should include ratings of the quality of the evidence. Use the rating scheme listed below with ratings of 1-5 for Reviews that include individual studies (modified from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine for ratings of individual studies).

There are several other preferred systems for rating the quality of evidence in Review articles. For Reviews that synthesize findings from numerous studies into a single summary recommendation, use the rating scale shown above or the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine's Levels of Evidence and Grades of Recommendation or the recommendations in the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines . For reviews that include diagnostic studies, use The Rational Clinical Examination Levels of Evidence table .

Follow additional instructions for preparation and submission of Tables .

A PRISMA-style flow diagram should be included as an online supplement that summarizes the results of the literature search and the numbers of articles/records/studies and patients/participants represented in the studies identified, screened, eligible, and included in the final review.

Additional figures that illustrate pathophysiology or clinical presentation may be considered. Note: All figures will be re-created. For each proposed illustration, the authors should provide a list of the elements to be included in the illustration; 3-4 relevant recent references; example illustrations, if available; a working figure title and legend; and an explanation of how this new illustration would add to the published literature. We encourage videos, if appropriate, to illustrate a point made or process described in the Review.

Follow additional instructions for preparation and submission of Figures and Video .

Narrative Reviews on clinical topics provide an up-to-date review for clinicians on a topic of general common interest from the perspective of internationally recognized experts in these disciplines. The focus of Narrative Reviews will be an update on current understanding of the physiology of the disease or condition, diagnostic consideration, and treatment. These reviews should address a specific question or issue that is relevant for clinical practice. Narrative Reviews do not require (but may include) a systematic review of the literature search. Recommendations should be supported with evidence and should rely on recent systematic reviews and guidelines, if available, emphasizing factors such as cause, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, or prevention.

The basic structure of manuscripts reporting Narrative Reviews should include the following: Abstract (structured abstract of no more than 300 words); Introduction (150-250 words); Methods, if included (150-250 words); Discussion/Observations (1000-1250 words, with the following subsections, if appropriate: Pathophysiology, Clinical Presentation, Assessment and Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prognosis); and Conclusions (2-3 sentences).

Typical length: 2000-3500 words (maximum), with no more than a total of 5 tables and/or figures, and no more than 50-75 references. For an example of this type of article, see JAMA . 2015;314(23):2544-2554 .

Specific Components of a Narrative Review

Abstract (300 words)

Narrative Review articles should include a 3-part structured abstract of no more than 300 words using the headings listed below:

Importance: An overview of the topic and discussion of the main objective or reason for this review. Observations: The principal observations and findings of the review. Conclusions and Relevance: The conclusions of the review that are supported by the information, along with clinical applications. How the findings are clinically relevant should be specifically stated.

The first 2 to 3 sentences of the Introduction should draw in readers in such that they want to continue reading the article and should establish the importance of the Review. Reviews should include the clinical question or issue and its importance for general medical practice, specialty practice, or public health. The first paragraph should provide a general summary of the clinical problem (eg, obesity). The next paragraph should focus on the specific aspect of the clinical problem the article will explore (eg, treatments for obesity). Briefly summarize the epidemiology of the disease. This information should include disease prevalence and incidence and perhaps discussion of the presence and frequency of any relevant subpopulations and any geographic or seasonal variations of the disease if these are relevant. The third paragraph should discuss exactly what material will be covered in the Review (eg, obesity treatments).

Methods (150-250 words)

A Methods section is not required for Narrative Reviews, but may be included to summarize a literature search that was conducted for this Review. If included, briefly describe the characteristics of the literature searched and included in the review, including the bibliographic databases and other sources searched, search terms used, dates included in the search, date the literature search was conducted, and any process used to evaluate the literature.

Discussion/Observations (1000-1250 words)

The principal observations of the Narrative Review generally should include the subsections listed below, although each section may not be necessary for some topics. The word counts following each subsection are suggested to assist with keeping the overall Observations section limited to 1000-1250 words.

Pathophysiology (150-250 words). Provide a brief overview of the pathophysiology of the disease. The intent is to provide readers with sufficient background information about the underpinnings of a disease to provide context for the rest of the article. Clinical Presentation (150-250 words). Briefly describe the clinical characteristics that result in a patient seeking medical care for the condition or what features of the disease should lead a physician to evaluate or treat it. Assessment and Diagnosis (250-300 words). Describe the clinical examination for evaluation of the disease and explain the most salient physical examination findings. If laboratory or imaging studies are necessary, provide the sensitivity and specificity and diagnostic accuracy of these tests and consider providing positive and negative likelihood ratios. Sequences of diagnostic tests are best presented as algorithms or in tables. Treatment (250-500 words). Treatments should be based on the most recently available and highest level of evidence. Treatment options should be summarized in the text and presented in detail in tables along with an indication of the strength of evidence supporting the individual treatments. In general, treatment recommendations should be supported by a systematic review or a high-quality guideline. If possible, the costs for various treatments should be provided. Prognosis (100-150 words). A section outlining the overall prognosis for the condition, once treated, should be included.

For most Narrative Reviews, tables should be included that summarize the epidemiology, diagnostic tools, and therapies available for the disease. In some cases, these 3 topics may not all be relevant to the review topic and tables may be appropriately modified to fit the review. Include a fourth table that compares the findings of the review and current clinical practice recommendations or diagnostic and therapeutic uncertainty or controversies.

Table 1: Major epidemiologic and burden of disease facts Table 2: Major diagnostic tools available Table 3: Major therapies available Table 4: Current clinical practice recommendations and/or diagnostic and therapeutic uncertainty, and controversies

Tables summarizing treatments should have information organized by category of treatment and then by individual treatments. Columns may include the treatment, strength of evidence supporting the treatment, the effect of the treatment (preferably shown as the treatment's effect as compared to control on the measured outcome together with 95% confidence intervals), adverse effects, and very brief explanatory comments, if necessary. Lengthy text-based tables should be avoided. Additional or lengthy tables may be published online only, if justified.

Figures that illustrate pathophysiology or clinical presentation may be included. Note: All figures will be re-created. For each proposed illustration, the authors should provide a list of the elements to be included in the illustration; 3-4 relevant recent references; example illustrations, if available; a working figure title and legend; and an explanation of how this new illustration would add to the published literature. We encourage videos, if appropriate, to illustrate a point made or process described in the Review.

Note: This journal publishes very few of these types of articles. These manuscripts describe an important issue in clinical medicine, public health, health policy, or medical research in a scholarly, thorough, well-referenced, systematic, and evidence-based manner.

A structured abstract is required. Maximum length: 3000 words of text (not including tables, figures, or references) with no more than a total of 4 tables and/or figures and no more than 50 references. For a recently published example, see JAMA . 2019;322(20):1996-2016 .

Clinical Challenge presents an actual patient scenario about a specific disease or condition with an accompanying clinical image.

Authors should provide 4 single-phrase plausible treatment options describing possible courses of action with one of these being the most correct response for the question "What Would You Do Next?" Manuscripts should include a brief discussion of the relevant clinical issues and provide well-supported (evidence-based) explanations discussing the 4 potential courses of action. For a recently published example, see JAMA . 2022;327(24):2448-2449. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.8384 .

All diagnostic and treatment recommendations should be supported by referencing recent authoritative texts or journal articles. Preferably, these recommendations should be supported by governmental or multisociety guidelines, clinical trials, meta-analyses, or systematic reviews. The text should have a maximum length of 850 words, consisting of no more than 250 words for the case presentation, question, and 4 one-sentence answers, followed by no more than 600 words that include the diagnosis and a brief discussion. There should be no more than 3 authors. At least 1 of the authors, ideally the corresponding author, should have sufficient expertise and experience with the topic. There should be no more than 10 references, and no more than 2 small figures totaling 3 image components (Figure 1, with no more than 2 components, for the case presentation; and Figure 2, with no more than 1 component, for the diagnosis and discussion).

Provide a short title that briefly describes the disease entity or case presentation and does not include the diagnosis. Do not include the patient's race, ethnicity, or country of origin in the title or the first line of the article. If this information is clinically relevant and necessary, it can be included in the case description.

In addition, the JAMA Network Patient Permission form must be completed and signed by the patient (or a family member if the patient has died, is a minor, or is an adult without decisional capacity) and included at the time of manuscript submission. Please read Patient Identification before submitting your manuscript.

The image and case presentation should be from the same patient and must not have been published previously. In some cases, additional figures may be included to accompany the answer explanations (see description of additional figure(s) above). All images submitted should be high-quality .jpg or .tif files. Submit the original version of all image files at the highest resolution possible without labels. In general, the original image file should have a minimum resolution of 350 dpi at a width of about 5 inches. Do not increase the original resolution, resize, or crop the image; where applicable, we will crop to maintain patient confidentiality. If any labels, arrowheads, or A/B panel indicators are desired, provide a separate labeled version of the figure(s) for reference. All labels will be reformatted to journal style.

For more information on how to submit figures, see Figures.

We would like to receive common problems presenting uncommonly, rather than unusual or rare conditions (ie, "zebras"). These cases should be of interest to clinicians; they should be problems that clinicians are likely to encounter and have an outstanding image that illustrates the disorder and contributes to the diagnostic challenge.

Manuscripts not meeting these guidelines will not be considered.

Diagnostic Test Interpretation presents the results of a diagnostic test from a single patient and explores the clinical application of the test result. The Diagnostic Test Interpretation is intended to help clinicians understand the underlying rationale in ordering tests, interpreting test results, and acting on the diagnostic test findings.

The diagnostic test result must be obtained from the care of an actual patient and must include that patient's written permission. The JAMA Network Patient Permission form should be read and completed and signed by the patient (or a family member if the patient has died, is a minor, or is an adult without decisional capacity) and included at the time of manuscript submission. The results of laboratory, pathologic, or radiographic tests are appropriate but clinical images are not. Results of the diagnostic test of interest (and related tests) and the range of reference values should be included after the case. Authors of manuscripts based on clinical images should consult the instructions for Clinical Challenge .

Provide a short title that briefly describes the disease entity or case presentation and does not include the diagnosis. Do not include the patient's race, ethnicity, or country of origin in the title or first line of the article. If this information is clinically relevant and necessary, it can be included in the case description.

Manuscripts for Diagnostic Test Interpretation should have the following sections:

Case presentation. The case presentation should be brief and focus on the diagnostic test in question. At the end of the case presentation the pertinent diagnostic test results and reference ranges should be provided (200 words). Include: JAMA Exclude: Specialty Journals, JNO Comments: How do you interpret these test results? How do you interpret these test results? (or What would you do next?) Four plausible responses should be provided. While most Diagnostic Test Interpretation articles will pose the question "How do you interpret these results?" a subset may more appropriately focus on the next best step regarding workup of the abnormal test result. In these cases, the question "How do you interpret these test results?" can be replaced with "What would you do next?" Either question should be presented in the format of a multiple choice question with a single correct (or best) answer. The answers may be brief phrases or short sentences, should be similar in length, and should be arranged alphabetically by first word in the answer. Response options should not describe treatments (about 50 words). Include: CAR,ONC Exclude: JAMA, DER, IMD, NEU, OPH, PED, OTO, PSY, SUR, JNO Comments: How do you interpret these test results? Test characteristics. A brief review of the diagnostic test should be provided (approximately 200 words). For biomarkers, this should include a brief description of the related physiology. Test accuracy should be reported using sensitivity and specificity or likelihood ratios, and predictive values should be provided for common clinical scenarios. Please use likelihood ratios whenever possible, since they do not depend on disease prevalence. The prevalence of the disease should be stated so that the pretest probability may be estimated. For example, "For patients with a typical disease prevalence of 10%, the predictive values of positive and negative test results are approximately 50% and 1%, respectively." Discussion of the application and utility of the diagnostic test should be based on a high-quality systematic review or authoritative practice guideline. If a more recent, original study supersedes or adds meaningfully to the prior synthesis of research, that article also should be cited. The approximate fee for the test should be provided. For example, some fees for laboratory tests can be obtained from the Medicare fee schedules . Radiology procedure fees can be found at the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule website . Application of test result to this patient. A brief discussion of how the diagnostic test result will facilitate the next steps in a patient's management should be presented. Please also address the correct answer to the question about test interpretation in this section (200 words). What Are Alternative Diagnostic Testing Approaches? If there are different testing strategies that can be used to evaluate patients to establish a diagnosis, please discuss them (100 words). Patient Outcome. Long-term follow-up (most recent as possible) regarding the patient's condition and outcome of treatment is necessary (100 words). Clinical Bottom Line. Please provide a bulleted list of 3-5 items that reflect the most important message readers should obtain from this article.

The overall text of the manuscript should have a maximum of 850 words, no more than 10 references, and no more than 3 authors. At least 1 of the authors, ideally the corresponding author, should have sufficient expertise and experience with the topic. The case presentation must not have been previously published.

For an example of this article type, see JAMA . 2022;327(13):1284-1285. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.2037 .

If there are questions about patient identifiability, please contact the editorial office. Authors interested in submitting a manuscript for Diagnostic Test Interpretation should contact the editorial office prior to manuscript preparation and submission by sending an email to Kristin Walter at [email protected] .

Viewpoints may address virtually any important topic in medicine, public health, research, discovery, prevention, ethics, health policy, or health law and generally are not linked to a specific article. Viewpoints should be well focused, scholarly, and clearly presented but should not include the findings of new research or data that have not been previously published.

Viewpoints must have no more than 3 authors. Editors encourage diversity of gender, race, ethnicity, geographic location, and discipline for Viewpoint authors, and the first author should have sufficient expertise and experience with the topic to provide an authoritative opinion. The text should include the full name, academic degrees, and no more than 2 institutional affiliations for each author. Maximum length: up to 1200 words of text—or 1000 words of text with 1 small table or figure—and no more than 7 references, which should be as current as possible. Viewpoints not meeting these guidelines will not be considered.

Most essays published in A Piece of My Mind are personal vignettes (eg, exploring the dynamics of the patient-physician relationship) taken from wide-ranging experiences in medicine; occasional pieces express views and opinions on the myriad issues that affect the profession. If the patient(s) described in these manuscripts is identifiable, a Patient Permission form , which provides consent for publication, must be completed and signed by the patient(s) or family member(s) and submitted with the manuscript. Manuscripts that describe identifiable patients that do not have a signed form will not be reviewed. Omitting data or making data less specific to deidentify patients is acceptable, but changing any such data is not acceptable. Fictional or composite accounts are not permitted.

Manuscripts are not published anonymously or pseudonymously and must have no more than 3 authors. All manuscripts must be submitted formally via the journal's manuscript submission system; we do not review drafts or unfinished manuscripts prior to submission. Length limit: 1600 words.

Poems related to the medical experience, whether from the point of view of a health care worker or patient, or simply an observer, will be considered. Poems should be original, not previously published or under consideration elsewhere, and no longer than 44 lines. Authors should submit each poem separately (ie, one poem per submission record). Submissions containing multiple poems will be returned with instructions to split into individual files. All poems must be submitted online via the online manuscript submission and review system .

Questions about submitting poems (but not submissions) may be sent to [email protected] .

Letters discussing a recent article in this journal should be submitted within 4 weeks of publication of the article in print. 3 Letters received after 4 weeks will rarely be considered. Letters should not exceed 400 words of text and 5 references, 1 of which should be to the recent article. Letters may have no more than 3 authors. The text should include the full name, academic degrees, and a single institutional affiliation for each author and the email address for the corresponding author. Letters must not duplicate other material published or submitted for publication and should not include unpublished data. Letters not meeting these specifications are generally not considered. Letters being considered for publication ordinarily will be sent to the authors of the original article, who will be given the opportunity to reply. Letters will be published at the discretion of the editors and are subject to abridgement and editing for style and content. To read more about Letters, see the AMA Manual of Style .

Replies by authors should not exceed 500 words of text and 6 references. They should have no more than 3 authors.

Clinical Trial

These manuscripts include reports of Randomized Clinical Trials, Parallel-Design Double-blind Trials, Crossover Trials, Equivalence and Noninferiority Trials, Cluster Trials, and Nonrandomized Controlled Trials.

The ICMJE defines a clinical trial as any research project that prospectively assigns human participants to intervention or comparison groups to study the cause-and-effect relationship between an intervention and a health outcome. 4 Interventions include but are not limited to drugs, surgical procedures, devices, behavioral treatments, educational programs, dietary interventions, quality improvement interventions, process-of-care changes, and the like. All manuscripts reporting clinical trials, including those limited to secondary exploratory or post hoc analysis of trial outcomes, must include the following:

  • Copy of the original trial protocol, including the complete statistical analysis plan and any amendments. The journal recommends using the SPIRIT reporting guidelines when preparing original protocols (see Protocols ).
  • CONSORT flow diagram (see Figure ).
  • Completed trial checklist (see Checklist ).
  • Registry at an appropriate online public clinical trial registry (see Trial Registration requirements).
  • A Data Sharing Statement to indicate if data will be shared or not. Specific questions regarding the sharing of data are included in the manuscript submission system.

For additional guidance on reporting Randomized Clinical Trial, Parallel-Design Double-blind Trial, Crossover Trial, Equivalence and Noninferiority Trial, Cluster Trial, and Nonrandomized Controlled Trial, see Study Types .

Each manuscript should clearly state an objective or hypothesis; the design and methods (including the study setting and dates, patients or participants with inclusion and exclusion criteria, or data sources, and how these were selected for the study); the essential features of any interventions; the primary and secondary outcome measures (consistent with those reported in the trial protocol); the main results of the study; a discussion section placing the results in context with the published literature and addressing study limitations; and the conclusions.

A structured abstract is required, and trial registration information (registry name, trial ID, and URL) must be listed at the end of the abstract; for more information, see instructions for preparing Abstracts for Reports of Original Data . A list of 3 Key Points is required (see guidance on preparing Key Points ). Maximum length: 3000 words of text (not including abstract, tables, figures, acknowledgments, references, and supplemental material) with no more than a total of 5 tables and/or figures and no more than 50-75 references. The subtitle should include the phrase "A Randomized Clinical Trial" or, for Nonrandomized Controlled Trials, "A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial." To read more about clinical trials, see the AMA Manual of Style .

Trial Registration:

In concert with the ICMJE, JAMA Network requires, as a condition of consideration for publication, registration of all trials in a public trials registry that is acceptable to the ICMJE (ie, the registry must be owned by a not-for-profit entity, be publicly accessible, and require the minimum registration data set as described by ICMJE). 4 , 8 , 9

Acceptable trial registries include the following and others listed at http://www.icmje.org :

  • anzctr.org.au
  • clinicaltrials.gov
  • trialregister.nl
  • umin.ac.jp/ctr

All clinical trials, regardless of when they were completed, and secondary analyses of original clinical trials must be registered before submission of a manuscript based on the trial. Secondary data analyses of primary (parent) clinical trials should not be registered as separate clinical trials, but instead should reference the trial registration number of the primary trial. Please note: for clinical trials starting patient enrollment after July 2005, trials must have been registered before onset of patient enrollment. For trials that began before July 2005 but that were not registered before September 13, 2005, trials must have been registered before journal submission. Trial registry name, registration identification number, and the URL for the registry should be included at the end of the abstract and also in the space provided on the online manuscript submission form.

Authors of manuscripts reporting clinical trials must submit trial protocols (including the complete statistical analysis plan) along with their manuscripts. Protocols in non-English languages should be translated into English. This should include the original approved protocol and statistical analysis plan, and all subsequent amendments to either document. Do not submit a summary version that was published as an article in another journal. If the manuscript is accepted, the protocol and statistical analysis plan will be published as a supplement.

CONSORT Flow Diagram and Checklist:

Manuscripts reporting the results of randomized trials must include the CONSORT flow diagram showing the progress of patients throughout the trial. The CONSORT checklist also should be completed and submitted with the manuscript. 10

Figure. Profile of a Randomized Clinical Trial

research paper submission

Trial Protocol

These manuscripts are documents that describe the organization and plan for a randomized clinical trial, including the trial's objective(s), design, methodology, all outcomes to be measured, and statistical analysis plan. All trial protocol manuscripts must include a copy of the trial protocol including the complete statistical analysis plan (see Protocols ). All clinical trials that have begun randomization must be registered at an appropriate online public registry (see Trial Registration requirements). Follow SPIRIT Reporting Guidelines .

A structured abstract is required, and trial registration information (registry name, trial ID, and URL) must be listed at the end of the abstract; for more information, see instructions for preparing Abstracts for Trial Protocols . A list of 3 Key Points is required (see guidance on preparing Key Points ). Maximum length: 3000 words of text (not including abstract, tables, figures, acknowledgments, references, and supplemental material) with no more than a total of 5 tables and/or figures and no more than 50-75 references. The subtitle should include the phrase "A Trial Protocol."

These manuscripts are systematic, critical assessments of literature and data sources pertaining to clinical topics, emphasizing factors such as cause, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, or prevention, and that includes a statistical technique for quantitatively combining the results of multiple studies that measure the same outcome into a single pooled or summary estimate. All articles or data sources should be searched for and selected systematically for inclusion and critically evaluated, and the search and selection process should be described in the manuscript. The specific type of study or analysis, population, intervention, exposure, and tests or outcomes should be described for each article or data source. The data sources should be as current as possible, ideally with the search having been conducted within several months of manuscript submission. Authors of reports of meta-analyses of clinical trials should submit the PRISMA flow diagram and checklist . Authors of meta-analyses of observational studies should submit the MOOSE checklist . Follow EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines .

A structured abstract is required; for more information, see instructions for preparing Abstracts for Meta-analysis . A list of 3 Key Points is required (see guidance on preparing Key Points ). Maximum length: 3000 words of text (not including abstract, tables, figures, acknowledgments, references, and online-only material), with no more than a total of 5 tables and/or figures and no more than 50-75 references. The subtitle should include the phrase "A Meta-analysis." To read more about meta-analyses, see the AMA Manual of Style .

Other Observational Studies

These manuscripts include Cohort Study, Case-Control Study, Cross-sectional Study, Case Series, Economic Evaluation, Decision Analytical Model, Comparative Effectiveness Research, Genetic Association Study, Diagnostic/Prognostic Study, Quality Improvement Study, Survey Study, and Qualitative Study. Each manuscript should clearly state an objective or hypothesis; the design and methods (including the study setting and dates, patients or participants with inclusion and exclusion criteria and/or participation or response rates, or data sources, and how these were selected for the study); the essential features of any interventions or exposures; the main outcome measures; the main results of the study; a discussion section placing the results in context with the published literature and addressing study limitations; and the conclusions and relevant implications for clinical practice or health policy. Data included in research reports must be original and should be as timely and current as possible (see Timeliness of Data ). Follow EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines .

A structured abstract is required; for more information, see instructions for preparing Abstracts for Reports of Original Data . A list of 3 Key Points is required (see guidance on preparing Key Points ). Maximum length: 3000 words of text (not including abstract, tables, figures, acknowledgments, references, and supplemental material) with no more than a total of 5 tables and/or figures and no more than 50-75 references.

Format My Manuscript

Manuscript preparation and submission requirements.

All manuscripts must be submitted online via the online manuscript submission and review system .

At the time of submission, complete contact information (affiliation, postal/mail address, email address, and telephone numbers) for the corresponding author is required. First and last names, email addresses, and institutional affiliations of all coauthors are also required. After the manuscript is submitted, the corresponding author will receive an acknowledgment confirming receipt and a manuscript number. Authors will be able to track the status of their manuscripts via the online system. After manuscript submission, all authors of papers under consideration for publication will be sent a link to the Authorship Form to complete and submit. See other details in these instructions for additional requirements. 2 , 4

As recommended by the ICMJE, "if the manuscript has been submitted previously to another journal, it is helpful to include the previous editors' and reviewers' comments with the submitted manuscript, along with the authors' responses to those comments." 4 It is not uncommon for manuscripts to have been submitted to and peer reviewed by other journals and sharing this information will not bias an editor's decision for this journal. Thus, authors are encouraged to submit these previous comments in their entirety and indicate how they have revised the manuscript in response to these comments, which may expedite the review process. In the submission system, there is a file type for Previous Peer Review and Editorial Comments.

Include a cover letter and complete contact information for the corresponding author (affiliation, postal/mail address, email address, and telephone number) and whether the authors have published, posted, or submitted any related papers from the same study (see Previous Publication, Related Manuscripts and Reports, and Preprints ).

Manuscripts should be prepared in accordance with the AMA Manual of Style , 11th edition, 2 and/or the ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals . 4

Include in the manuscript file a title page, abstract, text, references, and as appropriate, figure legends and tables. Start each of these sections on a new page, numbered consecutively, beginning with the title page. Figures should be submitted as separate files (1 file per figure) and not included in the manuscript text.

We recommend individual file sizes of no more than 500 kB and not exceeding 1 MB, with the total size for all files not exceeding 5 MB (not including any video files).

For submission and review, please submit the manuscript as a Word document. Do not submit your manuscript in PDF format.

Use 10-, 11-, or 12-point font size, double-space text, and leave right margins unjustified (ragged).

The title page should be the first page of your manuscript file. It should include a manuscript title; the full names, highest academic degrees, and affiliations of all authors (if an author's affiliation has changed since the work was done, the new affiliation also should be listed); name and complete contact information for corresponding author; and manuscript word count (not including title, abstract, acknowledgment, references, tables, and figure legends).

Titles should be concise, specific, and informative. 2(p8) Please limit the length of titles to 100 characters (including spaces) for reports of research and other major articles and 60 characters for shorter article types such as opinion articles and Letters as well as for subtitles to major articles. For scientific manuscripts, do not use overly general titles, declarative titles, titles that include the direction of study results, or questions as titles. For reports of clinical trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews, include the type of study as a subtitle (eg, A Randomized Clinical Trial, A Meta-analysis, A Systematic Review). For reports of other types of research, do not include study type or design in the title or subtitle. Depending on the context, avoid inclusion of specific locations (eg, state, province, or country) and specific years. To read more about titles, see the AMA Manual of Style .

In the manuscript, include a separate section called "Key Points" before the Abstract.

This feature provides a quick structured synopsis of the findings of your manuscript (required only for research and review manuscripts), following 3 key points: Question, Findings, and Meaning. Limit this section to 75-100 words or less.

Question: Focused question based on the study hypothesis or goal/purpose. Limit to 1 sentence. Findings: Results of the study/review. Include the design (eg, clinical trial, cohort study, case-control study, meta-analysis). Focus on primary outcome(s) and finding(s). Do not emphasize secondary outcomes. Report basic numbers only but state if results are statistically significant or not significant; do not include results of statistical tests or measures of variance (see example below). Can include 1 to 2 sentences. Meaning: Key conclusion and implication based on the primary finding(s). Limit to 1 sentence. Example of Research Article Question: What is the immunogenicity of an inactivated influenza A vaccine with and without adjuvant? Findings: In this randomized clinical trial that included 980 adults, the proportion achieving an effective antibody response was 84% with adjuvant vs 2% without adjuvant, a significant difference. Meaning: In an influenza pandemic the use of an adjuvant with inactivated influenza A vaccine may be warranted. Include: All Journals except JNO and JHF Exclude: JNO and JHF Comments: Example of Review Article Example of Review Article Question: What are the most effective medical treatments for adult chronic sinusitis? Findings: In this systematic review, symptoms of chronic sinusitis were improved with saline irrigation and topical corticosteroid therapy compared to no therapy. Compared with placebo, 3-week courses of systemic corticosteroids or oral doxycycline were associated with reduced polyp size, and a 3-month course of macrolide antibiotic was associated with improved symptoms in patients without polyps. Meaning: First-line therapy for chronic sinusitis should begin with daily topical intranasal corticosteroid in conjunction with saline irrigation; subsequent therapies should be based on the patient's polyp status and severity of symptoms.

Include a structured abstract for reports of original data, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews. Abstracts should be prepared in JAMA Network style—see instructions for preparing abstracts below. Abstracts are not required for Editorials, Viewpoints, and special features. No information should be reported in the abstract that does not appear in the text of the manuscript. To read more about abstracts, see the AMA Manual of Style .

Abstracts for Reports of Original Data:

Reports of original data should include an abstract of no more than 350 words using the headings listed below. For brevity, parts of the abstract may be written as phrases rather than complete sentences. Each section should include the following content:

Importance: The abstract should begin with a sentence or 2 explaining the clinical (or other) importance of the study question. Objective: State the precise objective or study question addressed in the report (eg, "To determine whether..."). If more than 1 objective is addressed, the main objective should be indicated and only key secondary objectives stated. If an a priori hypothesis was tested, it should be stated. Design: Describe the basic design of the study and include the specific study type (eg, randomized clinical trial, cohort, cross-sectional, case-control, case series, survey, meta-analysis, bibliometric analysis). State the years of the study and the duration of follow-up. For older studies (eg, those completed >3 years ago), add the date of the analysis being reported. If applicable, include the name of the study (eg, the Framingham Heart Study). As relevant, indicate whether observers were blinded to patient groupings, particularly for subjective measurements. Setting: Describe the study setting to assist readers to determine the applicability of the report to other circumstances, for example, multicenter, population-based, primary care or referral center(s), etc. Participants: State the clinical disorders, important eligibility criteria, and key sociodemographic features of patients (or other study participants). The numbers of eligible participants and how they were selected should be provided, including the number approached but who refused or were excluded. For selection procedures, these terms should be used, if appropriate: random sample (where random refers to a formal, randomized selection in which all eligible individuals have a fixed and usually equal chance of selection); population-based sample; referred sample; consecutive sample; volunteer sample; convenience sample. If matching is used for comparison groups, characteristics that are matched should be specified. In follow-up studies, the proportion of participants who completed the study must be indicated.

Note: The preceding 3 sections are usually combined for accepted papers during the editing process as "Design, Setting, and Participants," but for manuscript submission these sections should be kept separate.

Intervention(s) (for clinical trials) or Exposure(s) (for observational studies): The essential features of any interventions, or exposures, should be described, including their method and duration. The intervention, or exposure, should be named by its most common clinical name, and nonproprietary drug names should be used. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): Indicate the primary study outcome measurement(s) as planned before data collection began. If the manuscript does not report the main planned outcomes of a study, this fact should be stated and the reason indicated. State clearly if the hypothesis being tested was formulated during or after data collection. Explain outcomes or measurements unfamiliar to a general medical readership. Results: Summary demographic information (eg, characteristics such as sex and age) and the number of study participants should be reported in the first sentence of the Results paragraph. The main outcomes of the study should be reported and quantified, including final included/analyzed sample. When possible, present numerical results (eg, absolute numbers and/or rates) with appropriate indicators of uncertainty, such as confidence intervals. Use means and standard deviations (SDs) for normally distributed data and medians and ranges or interquartile ranges (IQRs) for data that are not normally distributed. Avoid solely reporting the results of statistical hypothesis testing, such as  P  values, which fail to convey important quantitative information. For most studies,  P  values should follow the reporting of comparisons of absolute numbers or rates and measures of uncertainty (eg, 0.8%, 95% CI −0.2% to 1.8%;  P  =.13).  P  values should never be presented alone without the data that are being compared. See also Reporting Standards and Data Presentation . Measures of relative risk also may be reported (eg, relative risk, hazard ratios) and should include confidence intervals. Studies of screening and diagnostic tests should report sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratio. If predictive value or accuracy is reported, prevalence or pretest likelihood should be given as well. All randomized clinical trials should include the results of intention-to-treat analysis as well. In intervention studies, the number of patients withdrawn because of adverse effects should be given. Approaches such as number needed to treat to achieve a unit of benefit may be included when appropriate. All surveys should include response/participation rates. Conclusions and Relevance: Provide only conclusions of the study that are directly supported by the results. Give equal emphasis to positive and negative findings of equal scientific merit. Also, provide a statement of relevance indicating implications for clinical practice or health policy, avoiding speculation and overgeneralization. The relevance statement may also indicate whether additional study is required before the information should be used in clinical settings. Trial Registration: For clinical trials only (not nontrial observational studies), the name of the trial registry, registration number, and URL of the registry must be included. See Trial Registration .

Abstracts for Meta-analysis:

Manuscripts reporting the results of meta-analyses should include an abstract of no more than 350 words using the headings listed below. The text of the manuscript should also include a section describing the methods used for data sources, study selection, data extraction, and data synthesis. Each heading should be followed by a brief description:

Importance: A sentence or 2 explaining the importance of the systematic review question that is used to justify the meta-analysis. Objective: State the precise primary objective of the meta-analysis. Indicate whether the systematic review for the meta-analysis emphasizes factors such as cause, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, or prevention and include information about the specific population, intervention, exposure, and tests or outcomes that are being analyzed. Data Sources: Succinctly summarize data sources, including years searched. The search should include the most current information possible, ideally with the search being conducted within several months before the date of manuscript submission. Potential sources include computerized databases and published indexes, registries, meeting abstracts, conference proceedings, references identified from bibliographies of pertinent articles and books, experts or research institutions active in the field, and companies or manufacturers of tests or agents being reviewed. If a bibliographic database is used, state the exact indexing terms used for article retrieval, including any constraints (for example, English language or human study participants). If abstract space does not permit this level of detail, summarize sources in the abstract including databases and years searched, and place the remainder of the information in the Methods section. Study Selection: Describe inclusion and exclusion criteria used to select studies for detailed review from among studies identified as relevant to the topic. Details of selection should include particular populations, interventions, outcomes, or methodological designs. The method used to apply these criteria should be specified (for example, blinded review, consensus, multiple reviewers). State the proportion of initially identified studies that met selection criteria. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Describe guidelines (eg, PRISMA , MOOSE ) used for abstracting data and assessing data quality and validity. The method by which the guidelines were applied should be stated (for example, independent extraction by multiple observers). Indicate whether data were pooled using a fixed-effect or random-effects model. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): Indicate the primary study outcome(s) and measurement(s) as planned before data collection began. If the manuscript does not report the main planned outcomes of a study, this fact should be stated and the reason indicated. State clearly if the hypothesis being tested was formulated during or after data collection. Explain outcomes or measurement unfamiliar to a general medical readership. Results: Provide the number of studies and patients/participants in the analysis and state the main quantitative results of the review. When possible, present numerical results (eg, absolute numbers and/or rates) with appropriate indicators of uncertainty, such as confidence intervals. Use means and standard deviations (SDs) for normally distributed data and medians and ranges or interquartile ranges (IQRs) for data that are not normally distributed. Avoid solely reporting the results of statistical hypothesis testing, such as  P  values, which fail to convey important quantitative information. For most studies,  P  values should follow the reporting of comparisons of absolute numbers or rates and measures of uncertainty (eg, 0.8%, 95% CI −0.2% to 1.8%;  P  = .13).  P  values should never be presented alone without the data that are being compared. See also Reporting Standards and Data Presentation . Meta-analyses should state the major outcomes that were pooled and include odds ratios or effect sizes and, if possible, sensitivity analyses. Evaluations of screening and diagnostic tests should include sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, receiver operating characteristic curves, and predictive values. Assessments of prognosis should summarize survival characteristics and related variables. Major identified sources of variation between studies should be stated, including differences in treatment protocols, co-interventions, confounders, outcome measures, length of follow-up, and dropout rates. Conclusions and Relevance: The conclusions and their applications (clinical or otherwise) should be clearly stated, limiting interpretation to the domain of the review.

Abstracts for Systematic Reviews or Special Communications:

Systematic Review articles should include a structured abstract of no more than 350 words using the headings listed below.

Importance:  Include 1 or 2 sentences describing the clinical question or issue and its importance in clinical practice or public health. Objective:  State the precise primary objective of the review. Indicate whether the review emphasizes factors such as cause, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, or prevention and include information about the specific population, intervention, exposure, and tests or outcomes that are being reviewed. Evidence Review:  Describe the information sources used, including the search strategies, years searched, and other sources of material, such as subsequent reference searches of retrieved articles. Methods used for inclusion of identified articles and quality assessment should be explained. Findings:  Include a brief summary of the number of articles included, numbers of various types of studies (eg, clinical trials, cohort studies), and numbers of patients/participants represented by these studies. Summarize the major findings of the review of the clinical issue or topic in an evidence-based, objective, and balanced fashion, with the highest-quality evidence available receiving the greatest emphasis. Provide quantitative data. Conclusions and Relevance:  The conclusions should clearly answer the questions posed if applicable, be based on available evidence, and emphasize how clinicians should apply current knowledge. Conclusions should be based only on results described in the abstract Findings subsection.

Abstracts for Narrative Reviews or Special Communications:

Importance:  An overview of the topic and discussion of the main objective or reason for this review. Observations:  The principal observations and findings of the review. Conclusions and Relevance:  The conclusions of the review that are supported by the information, along with clinical applications. How the findings are clinically relevant should be specifically stated.

Ratings of the quality of the evidence

Tables summarizing evidence should include ratings of the quality of the evidence. Use the rating scheme listed below with ratings of 1-5 for Reviews that include individual studies (modified from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine for ratings of individual studies).

Do not use abbreviations in the title or abstract and limit their use in the text. Expand all abbreviations at first mention in the text. To read more about abbreviation use, see the AMA Manual of Style .

Laboratory values are expressed using conventional units of measure, with relevant Système International (SI) conversion factors expressed secondarily (in parentheses) only at first mention. Articles that contain numerous conversion factors may list them together in a paragraph at the end of the Methods section. In tables and figures, a conversion factor to SI should be presented in the footnote or legend. The metric system is preferred for the expression of length, area, mass, and volume. For more details, see the Units of Measure conversion table on the website for the AMA Manual of Style . 2

To read more about units of measure, click here .

Use nonproprietary names of drugs, devices, and other products and services, unless the specific trade name of a drug is essential to the discussion. 2(pp567-569) In such cases, use the trade name once and the generic or descriptive name thereafter. Do not include trademark symbols. To read more about names of drugs, see the AMA Manual of Style .

Authors describing genes or related structures in a manuscript should include the names and official symbols provided by the US National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) or the HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee . Before submission of a research manuscript reporting on large genomic data sets (eg, protein or DNA sequences), the data sets should be deposited in a publicly available database, such as NCBI's GenBank , and a complete accession number (and version number if appropriate) must be provided in the Methods section or Acknowledgment of the manuscript. To read more about gene nomenclature, see the AMA Manual of Style .

JAMA does not republish text, tables, figures, or other material from other publishers, except under rare circumstances. Please delete any such material and replace with originals.

The submission and publication of content created by artificial intelligence, language models, machine learning, or similar technologies is discouraged, unless part of formal research design or methods, and is not permitted without clear description of the content that was created and the name of the model or tool, version and extension numbers, and manufacturer. Authors must take responsibility for the integrity of the content generated by these models and tools.

Authors are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of their references and for correct text citation. Number references in the order they appear in the text; do not alphabetize. In text, tables, and legends, identify references with superscript arabic numerals. When listing references, follow AMA style and abbreviate names of journals according to the journals list in PubMed . List all authors and/or editors up to 6; if more than 6, list the first 3 followed by "et al." Note: Journal references should include the issue number in parentheses after the volume number.

Examples of reference style:

Youngster I, Russell GH, Pindar C, Ziv-Baran T, Sauk J, Hohmann EL. Oral, capsulized, frozen fecal microbiota transplantation for relapsing Clostridium difficileinfection. JAMA . 2014;312(17):1772-1778. Murray CJL. Maximizing antiretroviral therapy in developing countries: the dual challenge of efficiency and quality [published online December 1, 2014]. JAMA . doi:10.1001/jama.2014.16376 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. CMS proposals to implement certain disclosure provisions of the Affordable Care Act. http://www.cms.gov/apps/media/press/factsheet.asp?Counter=4221. Accessed January 30, 2012. McPhee SJ, Winker MA, Rabow MW, Pantilat SZ, Markowitz AJ, eds. Care at the Close of Life: Evidence and Experience . New York, NY: McGraw Hill Medical; 2011.

For more examples of electronic references, click here .

General Considerations

Authors are encouraged to consult "Reporting Statistical Information in Medical Journal Articles." 1 In the Methods section, describe statistical methods with enough detail to enable a knowledgeable reader with access to the original data to reproduce the reported results. Such description should include appropriate references to the original literature, particularly for uncommon statistical methods. For more advanced or novel methods, provide a brief explanation of the methods and appropriate use in the text and consider providing a detailed description in an online supplement.

In the reporting of results, when possible, quantify findings and present them with appropriate indicators of measurement error or uncertainty, such as confidence intervals (see Reporting Standards and Data Presentation ). Avoid relying solely on statistical hypothesis testing, such as the use of P values, which fails to convey important quantitative information. For observational studies, provide the numbers of observations. For randomized trials, provide the numbers randomized. Report losses to observation or follow up (see Missing Data ). For multivariable models, report all variables included in models, and report model diagnostics and overall fit of the model when available (see Statistical Procedures ).

Define statistical terms, abbreviations, and symbols, if included. Avoid nontechnical uses of technical terms in statistics, such as correlation, normal, predictor, random, sample, significant, trend. Do not use inappropriate hedge terms such as marginal significance or trend toward significance for results that are not statistically significant. Causal language (including use of terms such as effect and efficacy) should be used only for randomized clinical trials. For all other study designs (including meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials), methods and results should be described in terms of association or correlation and should avoid cause-and-effect wording.

Sample Size Calculations

For randomized trials, a statement of the power or sample size calculation is required (see the EQUATOR Network CONSORT Guidelines ). For observational studies that use an established population, a power calculation is not generally required when the sample size is fixed. However, if the sample size was determined by the researchers, through any type of sampling or matching, then there should be some justification for the number sampled. In any case, describe power and sample size calculations at the beginning of the Statistical Methods section, following the general description of the study population.

Descriptive Statistics

It is generally not necessary to provide a detailed description of the methods used to generate summary statistics, but the tests should be briefly noted in the Methods section (eg, ANOVA or Fisher exact test).

Statistical Procedures

Identify regression models with more than 1 independent variable as multivariable and regression models with more than 1 dependent variable as multivariate. Report all variables included in models, as well as any mathematical transformations of those variables. Provide the scientific rationale (clinical, statistical, or otherwise) for including variables in regression models.

For regression models fit to dependent data (eg, clustered or longitudinal data), the models should account for the correlations that arise from clustering and/or repeated measures. Failure to account for such correlation will result in incorrect estimates of uncertainty (eg, confidence intervals). Describe how the model accounted for correlation. For example, for an analysis based on generalized estimating equations, identify the assumed correlation structure and whether robust (or, sandwich) variance estimators were used. Or, for an analysis based on mixed-effects models, identify the assumed structure for the random effects, such as the level of random intercepts and whether any random slopes were included. Fixed-effects estimation should be described as conditional likelihood. Avoid the term fixed effects for describing covariates.

Missing Data

Report losses to observation, such as dropouts from a clinical trial or those lost to follow-up or unavailable in an observational study. If some participants are excluded from analyses because of missing or incomplete data, provide a supplementary table that compares the observed characteristics between participants with complete and incomplete data. Consider multiple imputation methods to impute missing data and include an assessment of whether data were missing at random. Approaches based on "last observation carried forward" should not be used.

Primary Outcomes, Multiple Comparisons, and Post Hoc Comparisons

Both randomized and observational studies should identify the primary outcome(s) before the study began, as well as any prespecified secondary, subgroup, and/or sensitivity analyses. Comparisons arrived at during the course of the analysis or after the study was completed should be identified as post hoc. For analyses of more than 1 primary outcome, corrections for multiple testing should generally be used. For secondary outcomes, address multiple comparisons or consider such analyses as exploratory and interpret them as hypothesis-generating. The reporting of all outcomes should match that included in study protocols. For randomized clinical trials, protocols with complete statistical analysis plans should be cited in the Methods section and submitted as online supplementary content. Randomized clinical trials should be primarily analyzed according to the intention-to-treat approach. Deviations from strict intention-to-treat analysis should be described as "modified intention-to-treat," with the modifications clearly described.

Statistical Analysis Subsection

At the end of the Methods section, briefly describe the statistical tests used for the analysis. State any a priori levels of significance and whether hypothesis tests were 1- or 2-sided. Also include the statistical software used to perform the analysis, including the version and manufacturer, along with any extension packages (eg, the svy suite of commands in Stata or the survival package in R). Do not describe software commands (eg, SAS proc mixed was used to fit a linear mixed-effects model). If analysis code is included, it should be placed in the online supplementary content.

Reporting Standards and Data Presentation

Analyses should follow EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines and be consistent with the protocol and statistical analysis plan, or described as post hoc.

When possible, present numerical results (eg, absolute numbers and/or rates) with appropriate indicators of uncertainty, such as confidence intervals. Use means and standard deviations (SDs) for normally distributed data and medians and ranges or interquartile ranges (IQRs) for data that are not normally distributed. Avoid solely reporting the results of statistical hypothesis testing, such as P values, which fail to convey important quantitative information. For most studies, P values should follow the reporting of comparisons of absolute numbers or rates and measures of uncertainty (eg, 0.8%, 95% CI −0.2% to 1.8%; P  = .13). P values should never be presented alone without the data that are being compared. If P values are reported, follow standard conventions for decimal places: for P values less than .001, report as " P <.001"; for P values between .001 and .01, report the value to the nearest thousandth; for P values greater than or equal to .01, report the value to the nearest hundredth; and for P values greater than .99, report as " P >.99." For studies with exponentially small P values (eg, genetic association studies), P values may be reported with exponents (eg, P  = 1×10 −5 ). In general, there is no need to present the values of test statistics (eg, F statistics or χ² results) and degrees of freedom when reporting results.

For secondary and subgroup analyses, there should be a description of how the potential for type I error due to multiple comparisons was handled, for example, by adjustment of the significance threshold. In the absence of some approach, these analyses should generally be described and interpreted as exploratory, as should all post hoc analyses.

For randomized trials using parallel-group design, there is no validity in conducting hypothesis tests regarding the distribution of baseline covariates between groups; by definition, these differences are due to chance. Because of this, tables of baseline participant characteristics should not include P values or statements of statistical comparisons among randomized groups. Instead, report clinically meaningful imbalances between groups, along with potential adjustments for those imbalances in multivariable models. To read more about statistical tests and data presentation, see the AMA Manual of Style .

Tables and Figures

Restrict tables and figures to those needed to explain and support the argument of the article and to report all outcomes identified in the Methods section. Number each table and figure and provide a descriptive title for each. Every table and figure should have an in-text citation. Verify that data are consistently reported across text, tables, figures, and supplementary material.

See also Tables and Figures .

Frequency data should be reported as "No. (%)," not as percentages alone (exception, sample sizes exceeding ~10,000). Whenever possible, proportions and percentages should be accompanied by the actual numerator and denominator from which they were derived. This is particularly important when the sample size is less than 100. Do not use decimal places (ie, xx%, not xx.xx%) if the sample size is less than 100. Tables that include results from multivariable regression models should focus on the primary results. Provide the unadjusted and adjusted results for the primary exposure(s) or comparison(s) of interest. If a more detailed description of the model is required, consider providing the additional unadjusted and adjusted results in supplementary tables.

Tables have a minimum of 2 columns. Comparisons must read across the table columns.

Do not duplicate data in figures and tables. For all primary outcomes noted in the Methods section, exact values with measures of uncertainty should be reported in the text or in a table and in the Abstract, and not only represented graphically in figures.

Pie charts and 3-D graphs should not be used and should be revised to alternative graph types.

Bar graphs should be used to present frequency data only (ie, numbers and rates). Avoid stacked bar charts and consider alternative formats (eg, tables or splitting bar segments into side-by-side bars) except for comparisons of distributions of ordinal data.

Summary data (eg, means, odds ratios) should be reported using data markers for point estimates, not bars, and should include error bars indicating measures of uncertainty (eg, SDs, 95% CIs). Actual values (not log-transformed values) of relative data (for example, odds ratios, hazard ratios) should be plotted on log scales.

For survival plots, include the number at risk for each group included in the analysis at intervals along the x-axis scale. For any figures in which color is used, be sure that colors are distinguishable.

All symbols, indicators, line styles, and colors in statistical graphs should be defined in a key or in the figure legend. Axes in statistical graphs must have labels. Units of measure must be provided for continuous data.

Note: All figures are re-created by journal graphics experts according to reporting standards using the JAMA Network style guide and color palette.

  • Number all tables in the order of their citation in the text.
  • Include a brief title for each table (a descriptive phrase, preferably no longer than 10 to 15 words).
  • Include all tables at the end of the manuscript file.
  • Refer to Categories of Articles for limits on the number of tables.
  • NOTE: Do not embed tables as images in the manuscript file or upload tables in image formats, and do not upload tables as separate files.

Table Creation

Use the table menu in the software program used to prepare the text. Tables can be built de novo using Insert→Table or copied into the text file from another document (eg, Word, Excel, or a statistical spreadsheet).

Avoid using tabs, spaces, and hard returns to set up the table; such tables will have to be retyped, creating delays and opportunities for error.

Tables should be single-spaced and in a 10- or 12-point font (do not shrink the point size to fit the table onto the page). Do not draw extra lines or rules—the table grid will display the outlines of each cell.

Missing data and blank space in the table field (ie, an empty cell) may create ambiguity and should be avoided; use abbreviations such as NA for not applicable or not available. Each piece of data needs to be contained in its own cell. Do not try to align cells with hard returns or tabs; alignment will be imposed in the production system if the manuscript is accepted. To show an indent, add 2 spaces.

When presenting percentages, include numbers (numerator and denominator).

Include statistical variability where applicable (eg, mean [SD], median [IQR]). For additional detail on requirements for data presentation in tables, see Statistical Methods and Data Presentation .

Place each row of data in a separate row of cells, and note that No. (%) and measures of variability are presented in the same cell as in the example Table 1 below:

Table 1. Baseline Values in the Editors' Health Study

research paper submission

SI conversion factors: To convert cholesterol to mmol/L, multiply values by 0.0259.

Note that JAMA Network journals report laboratory values in conventional units. In a table, provide a footnote with the conversion factor to SI units. For a calculator of SI and conventional units, see the AMA Manual of Style . 2

To present data that span more than 1 row, merge the cells vertically. For example, in Table 2 the final column presents the P value for overall age comparisons.

Table 2. Blood Pressure Values Stratified by Age

research paper submission

The table should be constructed such that the primary comparison reads horizontally. For example, see Table 3 (incorrect) and Table 4 (correct).

Table 3. Patient Data by Study Group

research paper submission

Table 4. Patient Data by Study Group

research paper submission

If a table must be continued, repeat the title and column headings on the second page, followed by "(continued)."

Table Footnotes

Footnotes to tables may apply to the entire table, portions (eg, a column), or an individual entry.

The order of the footnotes is determined by the placement in the table of the item to which the footnote refers.

When both a footnote letter and reference number follow data in a table, set the superscript reference number first followed by a comma and the superscript letter.

Use superscript letters (a, b, c) to mark each footnote and be sure each footnote in the table has a corresponding note (and vice versa).

List abbreviations in the footnote section and explain any empty cells.

If relevant, add a footnote to explain why numbers may not sum to group totals or percentages do not add to 100%.

For more detail on the components and recommended structure of tables, see the AMA Manual of Style . 2

Number all figures (graphs, charts, photographs, and illustrations) in the order of their citation in the text. The number of figures should be limited. Avoid complex composite or multipart figures unless justified. See Categories of Articles for limits on the number of figures and/or tables according to article type.

For initial manuscript submissions, figures must be of sufficient quality and may be embedded at the end of the file for editorial assessment and peer review. If a revision is requested and before a manuscript is accepted, authors will be asked to provide figures that meet the requirements described in Figure File Requirements for Publication .

Graphs, charts, some illustrations, titles, legends, keys, and other elements related to figures in accepted manuscripts will be re-created and edited according to JAMA Network style and standards prior to publication. Online-only figures will not be edited or re-created (see Online-Only Supplements and Multimedia ).

Image Integrity

Preparation of scientific images (clinical images, radiographic images, micrographs, gels, etc) for publication must preserve the integrity of the image data. Digital adjustments of brightness, contrast, or color applied uniformly to an entire image are permissible as long as these adjustments do not selectively highlight, misrepresent, obscure, or eliminate specific elements in the original figure, including the background. Selective adjustments applied to individual elements in an image are not permissible. Individual elements may not be moved within an image field, deleted, or inserted from another image. Cropping may be used for efficient image display or to deidentify patients but must not misrepresent or alter interpretation of the image by selectively eliminating relevant visual information. Juxtaposition of elements from different parts of a single image or from different images, as in a composite, must be clearly indicated by the addition of dividing lines, borders, and/or panel labels.

The submission and publication of images created by artificial intelligence, machine learning tools, or similar technologies is discouraged, unless part of formal research design or methods, and is not permitted without clear description of the content that was created and the name of the model or tool, version and extension numbers, and manufacturer. Authors must take responsibility for the integrity of the content generated by these models and tools.

When inappropriate images or image adjustments are detected by the journal staff, authors will be asked for an explanation and will be requested to submit the image as originally captured prior to any adjustment, cropping, or labeling. Authors may be asked to resubmit the image prepared in accordance with the above standards.

Acceptable Figure Files for Initial Submission and Review

Each figure for the main article may be uploaded as a separate file or appended to the end of the manuscript with the figure titles and legends. Online-only figures must be combined into the PDF of the online-only supplement (see Online-Only Supplements and Multimedia ). Note: If a revision is requested and before acceptance, authors must upload each figure for the main article as a separate file and follow the instructions in Figure File Requirements for Publication .

See the Table of Figure Requirements for additional guidance for specific types of figures for suggested resolution and file formats. In general each figure should be no larger than 1 MB.

Figure File Requirements for Publication

Each figure for the main article must be uploaded as a separate file. Online-only figures must be combined into the PDF of the online-only supplement (see Online-Only Supplements and Multimedia ).

See the Table of Figure Requirements for additional guidance and file formats for specific types of figures.

Files created by vector programs are best for accurately plotting and maintaining data points. JAMA Network journals are unable to use file formats native to statistical software applications to prepare figures for publication; most statistical software programs allow users to save or export files in digital vector formats.

Images created digitally (by digital camera or electronically created illustrations) must meet the minimum resolution requirements at the time of creation. Electronically increasing the resolution of an image after creation causes a breakdown of detail and will result in an unacceptable poor-quality image. Each component of a composite image must be uploaded separately at submission and individually meet the minimum resolution requirement.

Color photographs should be submitted in RGB mode using profiles such as Adobe RGB or sRGB. Digital cameras capture images in RGB. Do not change any color settings once the file is on the computer. Black-and-white photographs (eg, radiographs, ultrasound images, CT and MRI scans, and electron micrographs) can be submitted in either RGB or grayscale modes.

Figure Titles and Legends (Captions)

At the end of the manuscript, include a title for each figure. The figure title should be a brief descriptive phrase, preferably no longer than 10 to 15 words. A figure legend (caption) can be used for a brief explanation of the figure or markers if needed and expansion of abbreviations. For photomicrographs, include the type of specimen, original magnification or a scale bar, and stain in the legend. For gross pathology specimens, label any rulers with unit of measure. Digitally enhanced images must be clearly identified in the figure legends as enhanced or manipulated, eg, computed tomographic scans, magnetic resonance images, photographs, photomicrographs, x-ray films.

Figures With Labels, Arrows, or Other Markers

Photographs, clinical images, photomicrographs, gel electrophoresis, and other types that include labels, arrows, or other markers must be submitted in 2 versions: one version with the markers and one without. Provide an explanation for all labels, arrows, or other markers in the figure legend. The Figure field in the File Description tab of the manuscript submission system allows for uploading of 2 versions of the same figure.

Number of Figures

Refer to Categories of Articles because there may be a limit on the number of figures by article type.

General Figure Guidelines

  • Primary outcome data should not be presented in figures alone. Exact values with measure of variability should be reported in the text or table as well as in the abstract.
  • All symbols, indicators (including error bars), line styles, colors, and abbreviations should be defined in a legend.
  • Each axis on a statistical graph must have a label and units of measure should be labeled.
  • Do not use pie charts, 3-D graphs, and stacked bar charts as these are not appropriate for accurate statistical presentation of data and should be revised to another figure type or converted to a table.
  • Error bars should be included in both directions, unless only 1-sided variability was calculated.
  • Values for ratio data—odds ratios, relative risks, hazard ratios—should be plotted on a log scale. Values for ratio data should not be log transformed.
  • For footnotes, use letters (a, b, c, etc) not symbols.
  • Do not submit figures with more than 4 panels unless otherwise justified.
  • See the AMA Manual of Style for more guidance on figure types and components.

For images featuring patients or other identifiable persons, it is not acceptable to use black bars across the eyes in an attempt to deidentify. Cropping may be acceptable as long as the condition under discussion is clearly visible and necessary anatomic landmarks display. If the person in the image is possibly identifiable (not only by others but also by her/himself), permission for publication is required (see Patient Identification ).

Table of Figure Requirements

research paper submission

To present frequency data (numbers or percentages). Each bar represents a category.

Bar graphs are typically vertical but when categories have long titles or there are many of them, they may run horizontally.

The scale on the frequency axis should begin at 0, and the axis should not be broken.

If the data plotted are a percentage or rate, error bars may be used to show statistical variability.

Acceptable File Formats for Initial Submission: .ai, .bmp, .docx, .emf, .eps, .jpg, .pdf, .ppt, .psd, .tif, .wmf, .xls

Acceptable File Formats for Revision and Publication: .ai, .emf, .eps, .pdf, .wmf, .xls

research paper submission

To demonstrate the relationship between 2 or more quantitative variables, such as changes over time.

The dependent variable appears on the vertical axis (y) and the independent variable on the horizontal axis (x); the axes should be continuous, not broken.

Flow diagram

research paper submission

To show participant recruitment and follow-up or inclusions and exclusions (such as in a systematic review).

Acceptable File Formats for Initial Submission: .ai, .docx, .emf, .eps, .jpg, .pdf, .ppt

Acceptable File Formats for Revision and Publication: .ai, .docx, .emf, .eps, .pdf

Survival plot

research paper submission

To display the proportion or percentage of individuals (represented on the y-axis) remaining free of or experiencing a specific outcome over time (represented on the x-axis).

The curve should be drawn as a step function (not smoothed).

The number of individuals followed up for each time interval (number at risk) should be shown underneath the x-axis.

Box-and-whisker plot (box plot)

research paper submission

To show data distribution from 1 or more groups, particularly aggregate/summary data.

Each element should be described (the ends of the boxes, the middle line, and the whiskers). Data points that fall beyond the whiskers are typically shown as circles.

Forest plot

research paper submission

To illustrate summary data, particularly in meta-analyses and systematic reviews.

The data are presented both tabularly and graphically.

The sources (with years and citations, when relevant) should comprise the first column.

Provide indicators of both directions of results at the top of the plot on either side of the vertical line (eg, favors intervention).

Typically, proportionally sized boxes represent the weight of each study and a diamond shows the overall effect at the bottom of the plot.

research paper submission

To display quantitative data other than counts or frequencies on a single scaled axis according to categories on a baseline (horizontal or vertical). Point estimates are represented by discrete data markers, preferably with error bars (in both directions) to designate variability.

Scatterplot

research paper submission

To show individual data points plotted according to coordinate values with continuous, quantitative x- and y-axis scales.

A curve that is generated mathematically may be fitted to the data to summarize the relationship among the variables.

Illustration

research paper submission

To explain physiological mechanisms, describe clinical maneuvers and surgical techniques, or provide orientation to medical imaging.

Required minimum resolution for publication: ≥350 ppi

Acceptable File Formats for Initial Submission: .ai, .docx, .eps, .jpg, .pdf, .ppt, .psd., tif

Acceptable File Formats for Revision and Publication: .ai, .eps, .jpg, .pdf, .psd, .tif

Photographs and other clinical images

research paper submission

To display clinical findings, experimental results, or clinical procedures, including medical imaging, photomicrographs, clinical photographs, and photographs of biopsy specimens.

Legends for photomicrographs should include details about the type of stain used and magnification.

Acceptable File Formats for Initial Submission: .eps, .jpg, .pdf, .ppt, .psd, .tif

Acceptable File Formats for Revision and Publication: .eps, .jpg, .psd, .tif

Line drawings

research paper submission

To illustrate anatomy or procedures.

Line drawings are almost always black and white.

Required minimum resolution for publication: ≥600 ppi

Acceptable File Formats for Initial Submission: .docx, .jpg, .pdf, .ppt, .psd, .tif

Acceptable File Formats for Revision and Publication: .jpg, .psd, .tif

Authors may submit supporting material to accompany their article for online-only publication when there is insufficient space to include the material in the print article. This material should be important to the understanding and interpretation of the report and should not repeat material in the print article. The amount of online-only material should be limited and justified. Online-only material should be original and not previously published.

Online-only material will undergo editorial and peer review with the main manuscript. If the manuscript is accepted for publication and if the online-only material is deemed appropriate for publication by the editors, it will be posted online at the time of publication of the article as additional material provided by the authors. This material will not be edited or formatted; thus, authors are responsible for the accuracy and presentation of all such material.

Online-only material should be submitted in a single Word document with pages numbered consecutively. Each element included in the online-only material should be cited in the text of the main manuscript (eg, eTable in the Supplement) and numbered in order of citation in the text (eg, eTable 1, eTable 2, eFigure 1, eFigure 2, eMethods). The first page of the online-only document should list the number and title of each element included in the document.

Online-Only Text

Online-only text should be set in Times New Roman font, 10 point in size, and single-spaced. The main heading of the online-only text should be in 12 point and boldface; subheadings should be in 10 point and boldface.

Online-Only References

All references cited within the online-only document must be included in a separate reference section, including those that also were cited in the main manuscript. They should be formatted just as in the main manuscript and numbered and cited consecutively in the online-only material.

Online-Only Tables

Online-only tables should be inserted in the document and numbered consecutively according to the order of citation as eTable 1, eTable 2, etc. All online-only tables should be cited in the relevant text of the main manuscript. The text and data in online tables should be Arial font, 10 point in size, and single-spaced. The table title should be set in Arial font, 12 point, and bold. Headings within tables should be set in 10 point and bold. Table footnotes should be set in 8 point and single-spaced. See also instructions for Tables above. If a table runs on to subsequent pages, repeat the column headers at the top of each page. Wide tables may be presented using a landscape orientation.

If data are better displayed in a separate Excel file, this can be submitted, provided that the Excel file is cited as an eTable and is numbered in the order cited in the text. If multiple Excel files of data are submitted, these should be placed in a single Excel file, with multiple tabs (sheets) at the bottom of the file. The first tab (sheet) should include a table of contents with eTable numbers and titles, and the subsequent tabs (sheets) should be labeled as eTable 1, eTable 2, etc. Please note: the journal is not a data repository; large data sets should be deposited into publicly accessible data repositories, and a link should be provided in the Methods or Results section and the Data Sharing Statement .

Online-Only Figures

Online-only figures should be inserted in the document and numbered consecutively according to the order of citation as eFigure 1, eFigure 2, etc. All online-only figures should be cited in the relevant text of the main manuscript. Figure titles should be set in Arial font, 12 point, bold, and single-spaced. Text within figures should be set as Arial font, 10 point. Figure legends should be set in 8 point and single-spaced. Graphs and diagrams should be exported directly out of the software application used to create them in a vector file format, such as .wmf, and then inserted into the Word document. Image file formats such as .jpg, .tif, and .gif are generally not suitable for graphs. Photographs, including all radiological images, should be prepared as .jpg (highest option) or .tif (uncompressed) files at a resolution of 300 dpi and width of 3-5 inches, but the resolution of photographic files with an original resolution <300 dpi should not be increased digitally to achieve a 300-dpi resolution. Photographs should be inserted in the document with the "Link to File" button turned off. Wide figures may be presented using a landscape orientation.

For editorial and review of an initial submission, submit videos according to the following specifications:

  • Acceptable file formats: .mov, .wmv, .mpg, .mpeg, .mp4, or .avi
  • Maximum file size: ≤25 MB
  • Preferred dimensions: 1920x1080 (HD) or greater (4k UHD footage is acceptable)
  • Minimum dimensions: 640 pixels wide by 360 pixels deep
  • Recommended frame rate: 24 fps (or 23.976 fps), 25 and 30 fps (or 29.97 fps)
  • Maximum length: ≤5 minutes
  • Desired aspect ratio: 4:3 (standard) or 16:9 (widescreen)
  • If compression is required to reduce file size for uploading, please use a minimum bit rate of 10,000 kbit/s – 20,000 kbit/s
  • When filming, please use a landscape orientation, not a portrait orientation. This is especially important when filming video or taking photographs with a smartphone or a mobile device.

Verify that the videos are viewable in QuickTime or Windows Media Player before uploading.

For each video, provide an in-text citation (eg, Video 1). At the end of the manuscript file, include a title (a brief phrase, preferably no longer than 10 to 15 words) and a caption that includes the file format and a brief explanation for each video. The same title and caption must be entered in the designated fields in the manuscript submission system when uploading each video. If multiple video files are submitted, number them in the order in which they should be viewed.

If patient(s) are identifiable in the video, authors must submit a Patient Permission form completed and signed by each patient. See also Patient Identification .

If the author does not hold copyright to the video, the author must obtain permission for the video to be published in the journal. This permission must be for unrestricted use in all print, online, and licensed versions of the journal.

NOTE: If your manuscript and accompanying videos are accepted for publication, the video files will be placed into a journal video frame and will be edited by JAMA Network video production staff according to journal style. In addition, a JAMA Network staff person may contact you to resubmit your videos to meet our production specifications. For example, a larger size may be needed, and if your videos were submitted with embedded text such as titles, annotations, labels, or captions, we will ask you to remove the text at this stage and resubmit the video without text, and JAMA Network video production will re-create all text using our house style.

Guidelines for Optimal Video Quality

  • Use plenty of diffuse light; avoid shadows.
  • Use the appropriate white-balance based on your lighting conditions. Different cameras have different settings, but most have presets for incandescent (yellow) light, fluorescent light, daylight, and tungsten light. Please make sure to select the correct one so that the color of your footage renders accurately.
  • Do not overexpose the image; a bit underexposed is preferable.
  • Use a tripod. This is especially important in close-ups.
  • Avoid excessive zooming. Use the optical zoom only; do not use a digital zoom.
  • Turn off all camera special effects.
  • Avoid using autofocus. Manual focus is more accurate. Keep the camera at a fixed distance from the subject.
  • Instruct people on camera to speak clearly and face the camera when speaking. Try to avoid large movements while speaking or immediately after speaking. Allow pauses before and after speaking for easier editing.
  • If the situation permits, ensure that individuals being filmed are not wearing white clothing or clothing with busy patterns or stripes, especially shirts, jackets, and ties. Subdued medium blue, brown, tan, beige, and green colors all work well for shirt and clothing choices.
  • Do not include an introduction by the physician as a "talking head" explaining a procedure. All footage should be of the procedure or relevant subject matter only.
  • Record a few extra seconds before and after each cut or after changing the camera's position. This allows for easier editing.

Additional Considerations for Filming Surgical Procedures

  • Coordinate with the surgical staff to establish a vantage point for the camera that has a clear view of the surgical field.
  • Before the procedure, if the situation permits, identify the surgical staff's positions for access into and out of the surgical field to ensure there is no immediate obstruction of the camera.
  • During the procedure, avoid typical obstructions of the camera's main view such as arms reaching across the field or soiled surgical sponges. Where possible, keep the heads, hands, and any instruments away from the immediate sightline of the camera. This will ensure that all moments of the procedure are captured in full view and focus.
  • If the situation permits a choice of glove type, use brown or tan. White gloves reflect bright light; vividly colored surgical gloves can distract the viewer from the teaching point of the video.
  • If the situation permits, avoid rapid movements for procedural steps that should be noticed and understood. To demonstrate a key moment or use of an instrument, movement that is deliberate and steady will allow a standard camera to focus properly.

For editorial and review of an initial submission, submit audio files according to the following minimum requirements:

  • Acceptable file formats: .mp3, .wav, or .aiff
  • Maximum file size: 25 MB
  • To achieve the best quality, use a setting of 256 kbps or higher for stereo or 128 kbps or higher for mono.
  • Sampling rate should be either 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz.
  • Bit rate should be either 16 or 24 bit.
  • To avoid audible clipping noise, please make sure that audio levels do not exceed 0 dBFS.

For each audio file, provide an in-text citation. At the end of the manuscript, include a title (a brief phrase, preferably no longer than 10-15 words) and a caption that includes the file format and a brief explanation for each audio.

NOTE: If your manuscript is accepted for publication, JAMA Network video production staff may contact you to request an original uncompressed audio file in .wav or .aiff format. There is no maximum file size requirement for publication at this stage.

After Submission

Authors will be sent notifications of the receipt of manuscripts and editorial decisions by email. During the review process, authors can check the status of their submitted manuscript via the online manuscript submission and review system . Authors should not disclose the fact that their manuscript has been submitted to anyone, except coauthors and contributors, without permission of the editor.

All submitted manuscripts are reviewed initially by one of the editors. Manuscripts are evaluated according to the following criteria: material is original and timely, writing is clear, study methods are appropriate, data are valid, conclusions are reasonable and supported by the data, information is important, and topic has general interest to readers of this journal. From these basic criteria, the editors assess a paper's eligibility for publication. Manuscripts with insufficient priority for publication are rejected promptly. Other manuscripts are sent to expert consultants for peer review. The journal uses a single-anonymized peer review process: peer reviewer identities are kept confidential (unless reviewers choose to reveal their names in their formal reviews); author identities are made known to reviewers. The existence of a manuscript under review is not revealed to anyone other than peer reviewers and editorial staff. Peer reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality about the manuscripts they review and must not divulge any information about a specific manuscript or its content to any third party without prior permission from the journal editors. Reviewers are instructed to not submit confidential manuscripts, abstracts, or other text into a chatbot, language model, or similar tool. At submission, authors may choose to have manuscripts that are not accepted by the journal referred to one of the JAMA Network specialty journals and/or JAMA Network Open along with reviewers' comments (if available). Information from submitted manuscripts may be systematically collected and analyzed as part of research to improve the quality of the editorial or peer review process. Identifying information remains confidential. Final decisions regarding manuscript publication are made by an editor who does not have any relevant conflicts of interest.

At the time of manuscript submission, authors may preselect the option to have their manuscript and reviewers' comments automatically referred to one of the JAMA Network specialty journals if the manuscript is not accepted by JAMA .

JAMA -EXPRESS

JAMA -EXPRESS provides rapid peer review and publication of major clinical trials and other original research studies that have immediate or public health importance. Authors who wish to have manuscripts considered for JAMA -EXPRESS should send the manuscript file and a request letter to [email protected] or call (312) 464-4444. Authors will be notified promptly whether the manuscript is approved for rapid peer review. Authors of those manuscripts determined not to qualify for rapid review may be invited to submit the manuscript for further consideration under the standard review process.

Authors may appeal decisions. All appeals are reviewed by the editor in chief, on a case-by-case basis, or a designated editor if the editor in chief is recused from the review.

After Revision/Acceptance

All authors are required to complete an Authorship Form and Publishing Agreement. See Authorship Criteria and Contributions .

Accepted manuscripts are edited in accordance with the AMA Manual of Style , 2 and returned to the corresponding author (or her/his designee) for approval. Authors are responsible for all statements made in their work, including changes made during editing and production that are authorized by the corresponding author.

Authors should not disclose the fact that their manuscript has been accepted to anyone, except coauthors and contributors, until it is published without permission of the editor or as described in the guidance on Previous or Planned Meeting Presentaton or Release of Information and Embargo Policy .

If accepted for publication, all articles are published quickly in one of JAMA 's weekly print/online issues; selected articles are published Online First.

After Publication

Postpublication correspondence.

For accepted manuscripts, the corresponding author will be asked to respond to letters to the editor.

Reprints and e-prints may be ordered online when the edited manuscript is sent for approval to the corresponding author.

Requests to publish corrections should be sent to the editorial office. Errors and requests for corrections are reviewed by editors and authors, and, if warranted, a Correction notice summarizing the errors and corrections is published promptly and linked online to the original article, and the original article is corrected online with the date of correction. 15

First and last authors of peer-reviewed articles are eligible to receive CME credit. See CME From the JAMA Network .

About Previous Release of Information, Embargo, and Access

Manuscripts are considered with the understanding that they have not been published previously and are not under consideration by another publication.

Copies of all related or similar manuscripts and reports by the same authors (ie, those containing substantially similar content or using the same, similar, or a subset of data) that have been previously published or posted electronically or are under consideration elsewhere must be provided at the time of manuscript submission. All related previously published articles should be cited as references and described in the submitted manuscript along with explanation of how the submitted manuscript differs from the related previously published article(s).

Manuscripts that have been previously posted on a preprint server may be submitted for consideration for publication. When the manuscript is submitted, authors must provide information about the preprint, including a link to it and a description of whether the submitted manuscript has been revised or differs from the preprint.

See also Previous or Planned Meeting Presentation or Release of Information and Research Article Public Access, Depositing in Repositories, and Discoverability.

Meeting presentation: A complete manuscript submitted to the journal following or prior to presentation at a scientific meeting or publication of preliminary findings elsewhere (ie, as an abstract) is eligible for consideration for publication. Authors considering presenting or planning to present the work at an upcoming scientific meeting should indicate the name and date of the meeting on the manuscript submission form. For accepted papers, the editors may be able to coordinate publication with the meeting presentation. Authors of submitted papers, including those accepted but not yet published, should not disclose the status of such papers during such meeting presentations that occur before the work is published. Authors who present information contained in a manuscript that is under consideration by this journal during scientific or clinical meetings should not distribute complete reports (ie, copies of manuscripts) or full data presented as tables and figures to conference attendees or journalists. Publication of abstracts in print and online conference proceedings, as well as posting of slides or videos from the scientific presentation on the meeting website, is acceptable. However, for manuscripts under consideration by this journal, publication of full reports in meeting proceedings or online, issuing detailed news releases reporting the results of the study that go beyond the meeting abstract, or participation in formal news conferences will ordinarily jeopardize chances for publication of the submitted manuscript in this journal. 5 Media coverage of presentations at scientific meetings will not jeopardize consideration, but direct release of information through press releases or news media briefings may preclude consideration of the manuscript by this journal. 5 Rare instances of papers reporting public health emergencies should be discussed with the editor. Authors submitting manuscripts or letters to the editor regarding adverse drug or medical device reactions, reportable diseases, etc, should also report this information to the relevant government agency.

Authors should not release information about accepted manuscripts via social media until publication.

See also Previous Publication, Related Manuscripts and Reports, and Preprints . For more information, see the AMA Manual of Style .

Authors should not disclose the fact that their manuscript has been accepted to anyone, except coauthors and contributors, without permission of the editor until it is published. All information regarding the content and publication date of accepted manuscripts is strictly confidential. Unauthorized prepublication release of accepted manuscripts and information about planned publication date may result in rescinding the acceptance and rejecting the paper. This policy applies to all categories of articles, including research, review, opinion, correspondence, etc. Information contained in or about accepted articles cannot appear in print, audio, video, or digital form or be released by the news media until the specified embargo release date. 2 , 5 See also Previous or Planned Meeting Presentation or Release of Information .

The journal makes all JAMA research articles free public access 6 months after publication on the journal website.

Authors of research articles may deposit the accepted version (ie, the peer-reviewed manuscript that you submitted on which this decision is based) of the manuscript in a repository of your choice on or after the date of publication provided that it links to the final published version on the journal website. You may not deposit the published article (version of record), which is the final copyedited, formatted, and proofed version published by the journal. The journal will deposit a copy of the published research article into PubMed Central (PMC) at the time of publication, where it will be publicly available 6 months after publication. A few weeks after publication, you may obtain your PMCID on the PMC site at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/pmctopmid/ . These options apply only to research articles. Non-research articles may not be deposited into repositories.

In addition, the journal will add metadata to all articles to ensure web-based search engine discoverability and will provide publicly discoverable information about your article to PubMed/Medline and numerous other bibliographic databases on the day of publication.

Author Responsibilities

Most of the JAMA Network journals' editorial policies for authors are summarized in these instructions. Citations and links to the AMA Manual of Style: A Guide for Authors and Editors 2 and other publications with additional information are also provided.

Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content. 2 One or more authors should take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, from inception to published article. According to the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), 4 authorship credit should be based on the following 4 criteria:

  • substantial contributions to conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; and
  • drafting of the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; and
  • final approval of the version to be published; and
  • 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.

Each author should be accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done. In addition, each author should be able to identify which coauthors are responsible for specific other parts of the work and should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of any coauthors.

All those designated as authors should meet all 4 criteria for authorship, and all who meet the 4 criteria should be identified as authors. Those who do not meet all 4 criteria should be acknowledged (see Acknowledgment Section ).

All authors (ie, the corresponding author and each coauthor) must read, complete, and submit an electronic Authorship Form with required statements on Authorship Responsibility, Criteria, and Contributions; Confirmation of Reporting Conflicts of Interest and Funding; and Publishing Agreement. 2(pp128-133) In addition, authors are required to identify their specific contributions to the work described in the manuscript. Requests by authors to designate equal contributions or shared authorship positions (eg, co-first authorship) may be considered if justified and within reason. 6 An email with links to the Authorship Form will be sent to authors for completion after manuscripts have been submitted.

For reports of original data, authors' specific contributions will be published in the Acknowledgment section (see Manuscript Preparation and Submission Requirements , Acknowledgment section ). 2 All other persons who have made substantial contributions to the work reported in this manuscript (eg, data collection, analysis, or writing or editing assistance) but who do not fulfill the authorship criteria should be named with their specific contributions and affiliations in an Acknowledgment in the manuscript. Written permission to include the names of individuals in the Acknowledgment section must be obtained.

Nonhuman artificial intelligence, language models, machine learning, or similar technologies do not qualify for authorship. If these models or tools are used to create content or assist with writing or manuscript preparation, authors must take responsibility for the integrity of the content generated by these tools. Authors should report the use of artificial intelligence, language models, machine learning, or similar technologies to create content or assist with writing or editing of manuscripts in the Acknowledgment section or Methods section if this is part of formal research design or methods. See also Reproduced and Re-created Material and Image Integrity .

The authors also must certify that the manuscript represents valid work and that neither this manuscript nor one with substantially similar content under their authorship has been published or is being considered for publication elsewhere (see also About Previous Release of Information, Embargo, and Access ). 2 Authors of manuscripts reporting original data or systematic reviews must provide an access to data statement from 1 or 2 named authors, often the corresponding author (see also Data Access, Responsibility, and Analysis ). If requested, authors should be prepared to provide the data and must cooperate fully in obtaining and providing the data on which the manuscript is based for examination by the editors or their assignees.

A single corresponding author (or coauthor designee in the event that the corresponding author is unavailable) will serve on behalf of all coauthors as the primary correspondent with the editorial office during the submission and review process. If the manuscript is accepted, the corresponding author will review an edited manuscript and proof, make decisions regarding release of information in the manuscript to the news media or federal agencies, handle all postpublication communications and inquiries, and will be identified as the corresponding author in the published article.

The corresponding author also is responsible for ensuring that the Acknowledgment section of the manuscript is complete (see Acknowledgment Section ) and that the conflict of interest disclosures reported in the Acknowledgment section of the manuscript are accurate, up-to-date, and consistent with the information provided in each author's potential conflicts of interest section in the Authorship Form (see Conflicts of Interest and Financial Disclosures ).

The corresponding author also must complete the Acknowledgment statement part of the Authorship Form confirming that all persons who have contributed substantially but who are not authors are identified in the Acknowledgment section and that written permission from each person acknowledged has been obtained (see Acknowledgment Section ).

Requests for co-corresponding authors will be considered on a very limited basis if justified, but no more than 2 co-corresponding authors will be permitted. In such cases, a primary corresponding author must be designated as the point of contact responsible for all communication about the manuscript and article, manage the tasks described above, and will be listed first in the corresponding author section. 6 To read more about the role and responsibilities of corresponding authors, see the AMA Manual of Style .

Authors should determine the order of authorship among themselves and should settle any disagreements before submitting their manuscript. Changes in authorship (ie, order, addition, and deletion of authors) should be discussed and approved by all authors. Any requests for such changes in authorship after initial manuscript submission and before publication should be explained in writing to the editor in a letter or email from all authors. 2(pp128-133)

The JAMA Network recognizes that authors may change their names for personal reasons, and the editors respect authors' rights to autonomy and privacy in this regard. Authors who request confidential name changes after publication because of changes in identity, marital status, religion, or other reasons may have their names changed in articles without indication of the reason for the change and without a formal correction notice. If an author prefers this change to be public, a formal Correction notice can be issued, with or without the reason per author preference. The journal will not request the approval of coauthors, but the requesting author may wish to notify coauthors if this change will affect subsequent citations to the article. The requester may be asked to notify the corresponding author about this change to the published article; alternatively, the journal may inform the corresponding author of this change (without explaining the reason for the change). The journal will make this change to the online and PDF versions of the published article and will notify postpublication indexes and databases as a standard process but cannot guarantee when or if the change will be reflected in these indexes and databases.

If authorship is attributed to a group (either solely or in addition to 1 or more individual authors), all members of the group must meet the full criteria and requirements for authorship as described above, and all group member authors must complete Authorship Forms. 6 If all members of a group do not meet all authorship criteria, a group must designate 1 or more individuals as authors or members of a writing group who meet full authorship criteria and requirements and who will take responsibility for the group. 2 , 6 Group names should appear at the end of the byline and should not be interspersed within the list of individually named authors. Group authors may not be included for article types with limited numbers of authors (eg, opinion articles).

For articles with a large number of authors (eg, >50), a long list of authors will not fit in the byline of a print/PDF version of the article. In such cases, a group byline will be recommended with the individual names of each author listed at the end of the article. All author names would still be individually indexed, displayed, and easily searchable in bibliographic records such as PubMed. 6

Nonauthor Collaborators: Other group members who do not meet the criteria for authorship (eg, investigators, advisors, assistants) may be identified. For group author manuscripts, a Nonauthor Collaborator Template (with names, academic degrees, institution, location, role/contribution, and subgroup) must be completed during revision. The template will be available to authors with the request for revision. The collaborators will be published in an online Supplement based on this template and will be deposited to PubMed.

To read more about authorship, click here .

A conflict of interest may exist when an author (or the author's institution or employer) has financial or personal relationships or affiliations that could influence (or bias) the author's decisions, work, or manuscript. All authors are required to report potential conflicts of interest including specific financial interests relevant to the subject of their manuscript in the Acknowledgment section of the manuscript 2 and in the Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest section of the Authorship Form. Note: These forms will be requested after a manuscript has been submitted, but authors should also include conflict of interest disclosures in the Acknowledgment section of the submitted manuscript.

Definitions and Terms of Conflicts of Interest Disclosures:

Authors are expected to provide detailed information about all relevant financial interests, activities, relationships, and affiliations (other than those affiliations listed in the title page of the manuscript) including, but not limited to, employment, affiliation, funding and grants received or pending, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speakers' bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Following the guidelines of the ICMJE, 4 the definitions and terms of such disclosures include

Any potential conflicts of interest "involving the work under consideration for publication" (during the time involving the work, from initial conception and planning to present), Any "relevant financial activities outside the submitted work" (over the 3 years prior to submission), and Any "other relationships or activities that readers could perceive to have influenced, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing" what is written in the submitted work (based on all relationships that were present during the 3 years prior to submission).

Authors without conflicts of interest, including relevant financial interests, activities, relationships, and affiliations, should indicate such in their disclosures and include a statement of no such interests in the Acknowledgment section of the manuscript. Failure to include this information in the manuscript may delay evaluation and review of the manuscript. Authors should err on the side of full disclosure and should contact the editorial office if they have questions or concerns.

Although many universities and other institutions and organizations have established policies and thresholds for reporting financial interests and other conflicts of interest, the JAMA Network requires complete disclosure of all relevant financial relationships and potential financial conflicts of interest, regardless of amount or value. For example, authors of a manuscript about hypertension should report all financial relationships they have with all manufacturers and owners of products, devices, tests, and services used in the management of hypertension, not only those relationships with entities whose specific products, devices, tests, and services are mentioned in the manuscript. If authors are uncertain about what constitutes a relevant financial interest or relationship, they should contact the editorial office.

For all accepted manuscripts, the corresponding author will have been asked to confirm that each coauthor's disclosures of conflicts of interest and relevant financial interests, activities, relationships, and affiliations and declarations of no such interests are accurate, up-to-date, and consistent with the disclosures reported in the Acknowledgment section of the manuscript because this information will be published in the Acknowledgment section of the article. Decisions about whether such information provided by authors should be published, and thereby disclosed to readers, are usually straightforward. Although editors are willing to discuss disclosure of specific conflicts of interest with authors, JAMA Network policy is one of complete disclosure of all potential conflicts of interest, including relevant financial interests, activities, relationships, and affiliations (other than those affiliations listed in the title page of the manuscript). The policy requiring disclosure of conflicts of interest applies for all manuscript submissions, including letters to the editor. If an author's disclosure of potential conflicts of interest is determined to be inaccurate or incomplete after publication, a correction will be published to rectify the original published disclosure statement, and additional action may be taken as necessary.

All authors must also complete the Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest section of the Authorship Form. 7

All financial and material support for the research and the work should be clearly and completely identified in an Acknowledgment section of the manuscript. At the time of submission, information on the funding source (including grant identification) must also be completed via the online manuscript submission and review system. The specific role of the funding organization or sponsor in each of the following should be specified: "design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication." 7 To read more about reporting funding and other support, see the AMA Manual of Style .

For all reports (regardless of funding source) containing original data, at least 1 named author (eg, the principal investigator), and no more than 2 authors, must indicate that she or he "had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis." 7 This exact statement should be included in the Acknowledgment section at the end of the manuscript. Modified statements or generic statements indicating that all authors had such access are not acceptable. In addition, for all reports containing original data, the names and affiliations of all authors (or other individuals) who conducted and are responsible for the data analysis must be indicated in the Acknowledgment section of the manuscript. If the individual who conducted the analysis is not named as an author, a detailed explanation of his/her contributions and reasons for his/her involvement with the data analysis should be included.

For all reports of research, authors are required to provide a Data Sharing Statement to indicate if data will or will not be shared. Specific questions regarding the sharing of data are included in the manuscript submission system. If authors choose to share or not share data, this information will be published in a Data Sharing Statement in an online supplement linked to the published article. Authors will be asked to identify the data, including individual patient data, a data dictionary that defines each field in the data set, and supporting documentation (eg, statistical/analytic code), that will be made available to others; when, where, and how the data will be available (eg, a link to a data repository); types of analyses that are permitted; and if there will be any restrictions on the use of the data. Authors also have the option to explain why data may not be shared. A list of generalist public repositories that authors may consider using is available from the National Library of Medicine .

The Acknowledgment section is the general term for the list of contributions, disclosures, credits, and other information included at the end of the text of a manuscript but before the references. The Acknowledgment section includes authors' contributions; information on author access to data; disclosure of potential conflicts of interest, including financial interests, activities, relationships, and affiliations; sources of funding and support; an explanation of the role of funder(s)/sponsor(s); names, degrees, and affiliations of participants in a large study or other group (ie, collaborators); any important disclaimers; information on previous presentation of the information reported in the manuscript; and the contributions, names, degrees, affiliations, and indication if compensation has been received for all persons who have made substantial contributions to the work but who are not authors. 2

All other persons who have made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (eg, data collection, analysis, and writing or editing assistance) but who do not fulfill the authorship criteria should be named with their specific contributions in an Acknowledgment in the manuscript.

Authors must obtain written permission to include the names of all individuals included in the Acknowledgment section, and the corresponding author must confirm that such permission has been obtained in the Authorship Form.

Authors should report the use of artificial intelligence, language models, machine learning, or similar technologies to create content or assist with writing or editing of manuscripts in the Acknowledgment section or the Methods section if this is part of formal research design or methods. This should include a description of the content that was created or edited and the name of the language model or tool, version and extension numbers, and manufacturer. (Note: this does not include basic tools for checking grammar, spelling, references, etc.) See also Statistical Analysis Subsection .

Requirements for Reporting

Authors of reports of studies and systematic reviews should follow the EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines .

Causal language (including use of terms such as effect and efficacy) should be used only for randomized clinical trials. For all other study designs (including meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials), methods and results should be described in terms of association or correlation and should avoid cause-and-effect wording. To read more about use of causal language, see the AMA Manual of Style .

Research reports should be timely and current and should be based on data collected as recently as possible. Manuscripts based on data from randomized clinical trials should be reported as soon as possible after the trial has ended, ideally within 1 year after follow-up has been completed.

For cohort studies, the date of final follow-up should be no more than 5 years before manuscript submission. Likewise, data used in case-control or cross-sectional studies should have been collected as recently as possible, but no more than 5 years before manuscript submission. Manuscripts in which the most recent data have been collected more than 5 years ago ordinarily will receive lower priority for publication; thus, authors of such manuscripts should provide a detailed explanation of the relevance of the information in light of current knowledge and medical practice as well as the most recent date(s) of analysis of the study.

Researchers are encouraged to report studies that include diverse and representative participants and to indicate participant inclusion and exclusion criteria and how the findings generalize to the population(s) that are the focus of or are compatible with the research question. Aggregate, deidentified demographic information (eg, age, sex, race and ethnicity, and socioeconomic indicators) should be reported for all research reports along all prespecified outcomes. Demographic variables collected for a specific study should be reported in the Methods section. Demographic information assessed should be reported in the Results section, either in the main article or in an online supplement or both. If any demographic characteristics that were collected are not reported, the reason should be stated. Summary demographic information (eg, baseline characteristics of study participants) should be reported in the first line of the Results section of Abstracts.

Reporting Age

Study inclusion or exclusion criteria by age or age group should be defined in the Methods section. Stratification by age groups should be based on relevance to disease, condition, or population (eg, <5 or >65 years). The ages for study participants should be reported in aggregate (ie, mean and SD or median and IQR or range) in the Results section.

Reporting Sex and Gender

The term sex should be used when reporting biological factors and gender should be used when reporting gender identity or psychosocial/cultural factors. The methods used to obtain information on sex, gender, or both (eg, self-reported, investigator observed or classified, or laboratory test) should be explained in the Methods section. 12 The distribution of study participants or samples should be reported in the Results section, including for studies of humans, tissues, cells, or animals. All participants should be reported, not just the category that represents the majority of the sample. Studies that address pregnancy should follow these recommendations, and if the gender identity of participants was not assessed, use the terms "pregnant participants," "pregnant individuals," "pregnant patients," etc, as appropriate.

In research articles, sex or gender should be reported and defined, and how sex or gender was assessed should be described. Whenever possible, all main outcomes should be reported by sex (or gender if appropriate). In nonresearch reports, choose sex-neutral terms that avoid bias, suit the material under discussion, and do not intrude on the reader's attention.

Reporting Race and Ethnicity

The Methods section should include an explanation of who identified participant race and ethnicity and the source of the classifications used (eg, self-report or selection, investigator observed, database, electronic health record, survey instrument).

If race and ethnicity categories were collected for a study, the reasons that these were assessed also should be described in the Methods section. If collection of data on race and ethnicity was required by the funding agency, that should be noted.

Specific racial and ethnic categories are preferred over collective terms, when possible. Authors should report the specific categories used in their studies and recognize that these categories will differ based on the databases or surveys used, the requirements of funders, and the geographic location of data collection or study participants. Categories included in groups labeled as "other" should be defined.

Categories should be listed in alphabetical order in text and tables.

Race and ethnicity of the study population should be reported in the Results section.

For additional information, see " Updated Guidance on Reporting Race and Ethnicity in Medical and Science Journals " and the Summary Guide for Preferred Terms When Reporting Race and Ethnicity .

For all manuscripts reporting data from studies involving human participants or animals, formal review and approval, or formal review and waiver, by an appropriate institutional review board or ethics committee is required and should be described in the Methods section. 2(p226) For those investigators who do not have formal ethics review committees, the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki should be followed. 13 For investigations of humans, state in the Methods section the manner in which informed consent was obtained from the study participants (ie, oral or written) and whether participants received a stipend. Authors of research studies involving humans should not make independent determinations of exemption or exclusion of IRB or ethical review; they should cite the institutional or regulatory policy for that determination and indicate if the data are deidentified and publicly available or protected by prior consent or privacy safeguards. Editors may request that authors provide documentation of the formal review and recommendation from the institutional review board or ethics committee responsible for oversight of the study.

A signed statement of informed consent to publish patient descriptions, photographs, video, and pedigrees should be obtained from all persons (parents or legal guardians for minors) who can be identified (including by the patients themselves) in such written descriptions, photographs, or pedigrees and should be submitted with the manuscript and indicated in the Acknowledgment section of the manuscript. Such persons should be offered the opportunity to see the manuscript before its submission. 2(pp229-232)

Omitting data or making data less specific to deidentify patients is acceptable, but changing any such data is not acceptable. Only those details essential for understanding and interpreting a specific case report or case series should be provided. Although the degree of specificity needed will depend on the context of what is being reported, specific ages, race/ethnicity, and other sociodemographic details should be presented only if clinically or scientifically relevant and important. 2 Cropping of photographs to remove identifiable personal features that are not essential to the clinical message may be permitted as long as the photographs are not otherwise altered. Please do not submit masked photographs of patients. Patients' initials or other personal identifiers must not appear in an image.

Patient Permission Form:

The Patient Permission form for publication of identifying material is available here . Translated versions in Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Hindi, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, and Spanish are available on request.

A signed statement of permission should be included from each individual identified as a source of information in a personal communication or as a source for unpublished data, and the date of communication and whether the communication was written or oral should be specified. 2(p199) Personal communications should not be included in the list of references but added to the text parenthetically.

Authors and reviewers are expected to notify editors if a manuscript could be considered to report dual use research of concern (ie, research that could be misused by others to pose a threat to public health and safety, agriculture, plants, animals, the environment, or material). 14 The editor in chief will evaluate manuscripts that report potential dual use research of concern and, if necessary, consult additional reviewers.

Journal Policies

Final decisions regarding manuscript publication are made by the editor in chief or a designated editor who does not have any relevant conflicts of interest. The journal has a formal recusal process in place to help manage potential conflicts of interest of editors. In the event that an editor has a conflict of interest with a submitted manuscript or with the authors, the manuscript, review, and editorial decisions are managed by another designated editor without a conflict of interest related to the manuscript.

All authors are required to complete and submit a Publishing Agreement that is part of the journal's electronic Authorship Form. In this agreement, authors will transfer copyright or a publication license; or indicate that they are employed by a federal government; or indicate that they are an employee of an institution that considers the work in the manuscript a work for hire, in which case an authorized representative of that institution will assign copyright or a publication license on the author's behalf.

Published articles become the permanent property of the American Medical Association (AMA) and may not be published elsewhere without written permission. Unauthorized use of the journal's name, logo, or any content for commercial purposes or to promote commercial goods and services (in any format, including print, video, audio, and digital) is not permitted by the JAMA Network or the AMA.

1. Cummings P, Rivara FP. Reporting statistical information in medical journal articles. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med . 2003;157(4):321-324. doi:10.1001/archpedi.157.4.321

2. Iverson C, Christiansen S, Flanagin A, et al. AMA Manual of Style: A Guide for Authors and Editors . 11th ed. Oxford University Press; 2020. http://www.amamanualofstyle.com

3. Golub RM. Correspondence course: tips for getting a letter published in JAMA . JAMA . 2008;300(1):98-99. doi:10.1001/jama.300.1.98

4. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. Updated May 2023. Accessed May 18, 2023. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/

5. Fontanarosa PB, Flanagin A, DeAngelis CD. Update on JAMA 's policy on release of information to the public. JAMA . 2008;300(13):1585-1587. doi:10.1001/jama.300.13.1585

6. Fontanarosa P, Bauchner H, Flanagin A. Authorship and team science. JAMA . 2017;318(24):2433-2437. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.19341

7. Fontanarosa PB, Flanagin A, DeAngelis CD. Reporting conflicts of interest, financial aspects of research, and role of sponsors in funded studies. JAMA . 2005;294(1):110-111. doi:10.1001/jama.294.1.110

8. DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, et al; International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA . 2004;292(11):1363-1364. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.6933

9. DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, et al; International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Is this clinical trial fully registered? a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA . 2005;293(23):2927-2929. doi:10.1001/jama.293.23.jed50037

10. The CONSORT Group. The CONSORT statement. Updated 2014. Accessed September 23, 2016. http://www.consort-statement.org/consort-2010

11. American Association for Public Opinion Research. Best practices for survey research. Accessed March 23, 2023. https://aapor.org/standards-and-ethics/best-practices/

12. Clayton JA, Tannenbaum C. Reporting sex, gender, or both in clinical research? JAMA . 2016;316(18):1863-1864. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.16405

13. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA . 2013;310(20):2191-2194. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.281053

14. Journal Editors and Authors Group. Statement on scientific publication and security. Science . 2003;299(5610):1149. doi:10.1126/science.299.5610.1149 . Published correction appears in Science . 2003;299(5614):1845.

15. Christiansen S, Flanagin A. Correcting the medical literature: "to err is human, to correct divine." JAMA . 2017;318(9):804-805. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.11833

Last Updated: February 16, 2024

Quick Links

  • Why Publish in JAMA
  • Submit and Track Your Manuscript
  • Author Reprints
  • Permissions Requests
  • Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
  • Access PDFs of free articles
  • Manage your interests
  • Save searches and receive search alerts

Logo for Cornell University

We gratefully acknowledge support from the Simons Foundation, member institutions, and all contributors.

  • Accessibility
  • Status Information
  • Ancillary Files (data, code, images)

Availability of submissions

  • Category cross listing
  • Endorsement
  • Adding Journal Reference and DOI
  • Text Overlap
  • Metadata for Required and Optional Fields
  • Submit a new version of a work
  • Oversized Submissions
  • Submit a Paper List for Conference Proceedings
  • Creating tar and zip Files for Upload
  • What is TeX
  • Proxy / Third Party Submission
  • Translations
  • Version Availability
  • Why Submit TeX?
  • Withdraw / Retract a Submission
  • Institutional Repository Interoperability
  • Automated DOI and journal reference updates from publishers
  • Submission schedule and cutoff time
  • Content Moderation
  • License and copyright
  • Withdrawals
  • Cross listing
  • Non-English submissions
  • Requiring TeX when possible
  • Third party submission
  • arXiv Usage Stats

Submission Guidelines

While submission to arXiv is free for authors, we do ask authors to carefully prepare their work according to these guidelines. This will improve discoverability of the work and reduce the likelihood of delays before announcement.

Submissions to arXiv should be topical and refereeable scientific contributions that follow accepted standards of scholarly communication.

  • We only accept submissions from registered authors . If you are a new user or are submitting to a new category, you may be required to find endorsements .
  • All submissions are subject to a moderation process that verifies material is appropriate and topical. Material that contains offensive language, non-scientific content, or is plagiarized may be removed.
  • Authors must grant arXiv.org an irrevocable license to distribute the work.
  • Authors must agree to the Submission Terms and Agreement .
  • Authors are expected to self-submit. Submissions by a third party are only accepted under limited conditions. See instructions for third-party submissions and index submissions for conference proceedings.
  • New submissions received by 14:00 (Eastern Daylight/Standard Time Zone) are generally made available at 20:00 (Eastern) based on the schedule for availability . Also see versions help pages .

Submission Preparation

  • Formats for text submission

Formats for figures

File names and case sensitivity.

  • Inclusion of data sets and ancillary files (data, programs, etc.)

Title and abstract preparation

Verify and correct your submission, edit or replace your submission.

To submit an article, use the submit form or select "START NEW SUBMISSION" from your user page .

Formats for text of submission

Accepted submission formats (in order of preference):

  • (La)TeX Markup Best Practices for Successful HTML Papers
  • HTML with JPEG/PNG/GIF images

Our goal is to store articles in formats that are highly portable and stable over time. Currently, the best choice is TeX/LaTeX.

We do not accept dvi, PS, or PDF created from TeX/LaTeX source , and we do not accept scanned documents, regardless of format.

Accepted figure formats:

  • PostScript (PS, EPS) — requires LaTeX processing
  • JPEG, GIF, PNG or PDF figures — requires PDFLaTeX processing

We do not accept submissions with omitted figures, even if you provide links to view figures externally.

If you submit figures with your (La)TeX source, use standard macro packages (e.g., the graphics and graphicx packages) to have figures appear in the document. arXiv administration cannot provide help with TeX-related issues.

arXiv will accept only the following characters in file names:

a-z A-Z 0-9 _ + - . , =

File names that contain other characters (e.g., spaces, question marks, asterisks) will be rejected. These restrictions ensure maximum portability of the stored files and minimize archival risk.

File names and extensions are also case sensitive on our system. The file names Figure1.PDF and figure1.pdf are not the same. Whether your local system is case sensitive (e.g., Unix) or not (e.g., Windows) you must ensure that internal file references, such as LaTeX figure inclusion commands, match case exactly.

Inclusion of ancillary files

There are limited facilities for including data sets and ancillary files (data, programs, etc.) that are associated with articles submitted to arXiv. See separate instructions about including data sets and ancillary files.

See separate instructions for preparing the title and abstract for inclusion in metadata. This information is used on the abstract pages, in announcements, in RSS feeds, and to support searching.

Before you make the final "Submit Article" step in the submission process, be sure to carefully check the title and abstract (metadata) and the processed files, and correct any errors. Contact arXiv administrators for help.

unsubmit icon

Unsubmitting an article takes the article out of the processing queue, and announcement will be scheduled based on the later resubmission time. See the schedule of availability .

No additional versions are generated when edits are done before the submission is publicly announced.

The date stamp associated with the submission will be the time that the final "Submit Article" step is completed. Edits and final submission before 14:00 US Eastern Time (EDT/EST) Monday through Friday will not delay announcement. You may wish to check current local time .

We encourage authors to update and to make corrections to their articles. DO NOT make a new submission for a corrected article or for an erratum. Instead, replace the original submission.

For more information see our public submission availability page .

  • Privacy Policy
  • contact arXiv Click here to contact arXiv Contact
  • subscribe to arXiv mailings Click here to subscribe Subscribe
  • Report an issue Click here to report an issue with arXiv's documentation in github Report a documentation issue
  • Web Accessibility Assistance

arXiv Operational Status Get status notifications via email or slack

Share this page:

Submission Guidelines

Submission checklist.

Carefully review each item listed below before submitting your article. Article submissions that do not follow the guidelines below will be returned to draft or immediately rejected.

  • Manuscript should be prepared in a double column, single-spaced format using a required IEEE Access template. A Word or LaTex file and a PDF file are both required upon submission. Content on each file must match exactly. File sizes should not exceed 40MB.  Download IEEE Access Templates for Microsoft Word and LaTex.
  • The use of artificial intelligence (AI)–generated text in an article shall be disclosed in the acknowledgements section of any paper submitted to an IEEE Conference or Periodical. The sections of the paper that use AI-generated text shall have a citation to the AI system used to generate the text.  For more information  please click here.
  • Author lists should be carefully considered before submission. For more information on what constitutes an author, please click here. (Changes to author list post acceptance are not allowed.)
  • Corresponding authors are required to have an ORCID ID associated with their account. For more information on ORCID, click here.
  • Short biographies are required for ALL authors on an article submission. As indicated in the required IEEE Access templates, biographies of all authors should be included directly within the article below the references section.
  • All authors should be listed on both the source file (Word of LaTex file) and the manuscript PDF file. When submitting your files ensure the submission system successfully extracts the full author list from your files.
  • The article should be thoroughly reviewed for proper grammar before being submitted. Articles with poor grammar will be immediately rejected. If needed, IEEE Access offers Paperpal Preflight to assist authors in checking their manuscript for grammar issues prior to submission. Check your manuscript on Paperpal Preflight by clicking here .
  • All research works should be carefully referenced. More information to avoid plagiarism is listed below.
  • The article should not be submitted elsewhere at the same time. More information about duplicate submission can be found here .
  • Supplementary material for review (if any)
  • Manuscript keywords (minimum of 3 and maximum of 10).  Please carefully select the keywords as this is how we select a relevant Associate Editor to manage the peer review of your article.
  • You will be required to select a manuscript type upon submission. A list and description of manuscript types are listed below. If you are unsure, please leave it as “Research Article”. *Please note that should your article be accepted, the manuscript type will be published on the article.
  • Opposed reviewers (if any)
  • Video (if any, maximum file size is 100MB)
  • If the article was previously rejected after peer review with encouragement to update and resubmit, then a complete “list of updates” must be included in a separate document. The list of updates should have the following regarding each comment: 1) reviewers’ concerns, 2) authors’ response to the concerns, 3) actual changes implemented.
  • IEEE Access does not have a page limit; however, we strongly recommend keeping the page count under 50 pages for ease of readability. Longer articles may result in longer peer review times. Additional content can be added as supplementary material.
  • In alignment with the IEEE Code of Ethics and with respect to the wishes of the subject of the image, IEEE will no longer accept submitted papers which include the ‘Lena image’. For more information  please click here .
  • Upon submission you will be asked to answer the following 3 questions to assist the Associate Editors and reviewers in the evaluation of your manuscript: 1) Please add a brief explanation justifying the manuscript type you have chosen (below). This information will help the Associate Editor and the reviewers during peer review so they evaluate your manuscript with the correct article type in mind. 2) Please describe how your article fits the scope of IEEE Access . Note, the scope of IEEE Access covers all (but only) IEEE’s fields of interest. 3) Please state the unique contributions and advancements your article makes in the related existing literature.

Manuscript Types Acceptable for Peer Review

At a glance.

  • Journal: IEEE Access
  • Format: Open Access
  • Frequency: Continuous
  • Submission to Publication: 4-6 weeks (typical)
  • Topics: All topics in IEEE
  • Average Acceptance Rate: 27%
  • Model: Binary Peer Review
  • Article Processing Charge: US $1,995

Featured Articles

research paper submission

Deep Embedded Clustering Framework for Mixed Data

View in IEEE Xplore

research paper submission

Chat2VIS: Generating Data Visualizations via Natural Language Using ChatGPT, Codex and GPT-3 Large Language Models

research paper submission

Nanoflowers Versus Magnetosomes: Comparison Between Two Promising Candidates for Magnetic Hyperthermia Therapy

© 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this website signifies your agreement to the IEEE TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world’s largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity.

AWARD RULES:

NO PURCHASE NECESSARY TO ENTER OR WIN. A PURCHASE WILL NOT INCREASE YOUR CHANCES OF WINNING.

These rules apply to the “2024 IEEE Access Best Video Award Part 1″ (the “Award”).

  • Sponsor: The Sponsor of the Award is The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Incorporated (“IEEE”) on behalf of IEEE Access , 445 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, NJ 08854-4141 USA (“Sponsor”).
  • Eligibility: Award is open to residents of the United States of America and other countries, where permitted by local law, who are the age of eighteen (18) and older. Employees of Sponsor, its agents, affiliates and their immediate families are not eligible to enter Award. The Award is subject to all applicable state, local, federal and national laws and regulations. Entrants may be subject to rules imposed by their institution or employer relative to their participation in Awards and should check with their institution or employer for any relevant policies. Void in locations and countries where prohibited by law.
  • Agreement to Official Rules : By participating in this Award, entrants agree to abide by the terms and conditions thereof as established by Sponsor. Sponsor reserves the right to alter any of these Official Rules at any time and for any reason.  All decisions made by Sponsor concerning the Award including, but not limited to the cancellation of the Award, shall be final and at its sole discretion. 
  • How to Enter: This Award opens on January 1, 2024 at 12:00 AM ET and all entries must be received by 11:59 PM ET on June 30, 2024 (“Promotional Period”).

Entrant must submit a video with an article submission to IEEE Access . The video submission must clearly be relevant to the submitted manuscript.  Only videos that accompany an article that is accepted for publication in IEEE Access will qualify.  The video may be simulations, demonstrations, or interviews with other experts, for example.  Your video file should not exceed 100 MB.

Entrants can enter the Award during Promotional Period through the following method:

  • The IEEE Author Portal : Entrants can upload their video entries while submitting their article through the IEEE Author Portal submission site .
  • Review and Complete the Terms and Conditions: After submitting your manuscript and video through the IEEE Author Portal, entrants should then review and sign the Terms and Conditions .

Entrants who have already submitted a manuscript to IEEE Access without a video can still submit a video for inclusion in this Award so long as the video is submitted within 7 days of the article submission date.  The video can be submitted via email to the article administrator.  All videos must undergo peer review and be accepted along with the article submission.  Videos may not be submitted after an article has already been accepted for publication. 

The criteria for an article to be accepted for publication in IEEE Access are:

  • The article must be original writing that enhances the existing body of knowledge in the given subject area. Original review articles and surveys are acceptable even if new data/concepts are not presented.
  • Results reported must not have been submitted or published elsewhere (although expanded versions of conference publications are eligible for submission).
  • Experiments, statistics, and other analyses must be performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail.
  • Conclusions must be presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data.
  • The article must be written in standard English with correct grammar.
  • Appropriate references to related prior published works must be included.
  • The article must fall within the scope of IEEE Access
  • Must be in compliance with the IEEE PSPB Operations Manual.
  • Completion of the required IEEE intellectual property documents for publication.
  • At the discretion of the IEEE Access Editor-in-Chief.
  • Disqualification: The following items will disqualify a video from being considered a valid submission:
  • The video is not original work.
  • A video that is not accompanied with an article submission.
  • The article and/or video is rejected during the peer review process.
  • The article and/or video topic does not fit into the scope of IEEE Access .
  • The article and/or do not follow the criteria for publication in IEEE Access .
  • Videos posted in a comment on IEEE Xplore .
  • Content ​is off-topic, offensive, obscene, indecent, abusive or threatening to others.
  • Infringes the copyright, trademark or other right of any third party.
  • Uploads viruses or other contaminating or destructive features.
  • Is in violation of any applicable laws or regulations.
  • Is not in English​.
  • Is not provided within the designated submission time.
  • Entrant does not agree and sign the Terms and Conditions document.

Entries must be original. Entries that copy other entries, or the intellectual property of anyone other than the Entrant, may be removed by Sponsor and the Entrant may be disqualified. Sponsor reserves the right to remove any entry and disqualify any Entrant if the entry is deemed, in Sponsor’s sole discretion, to be inappropriate.

  • Entrant’s Warranty and Authorization to Sponsor: By entering the Award, entrants warrant and represent that the Award Entry has been created and submitted by the Entrant. Entrant certifies that they have the ability to use any image, text, video, or other intellectual property they may upload and that Entrant has obtained all necessary permissions. IEEE shall not indemnify Entrant for any infringement, violation of publicity rights, or other civil or criminal violations. Entrant agrees to hold IEEE harmless for all actions related to the submission of an Entry. Entrants further represent and warrant, if they reside outside of the United States of America, that their participation in this Award and acceptance of a prize will not violate their local laws.
  • Intellectual Property Rights: Entrant grants Sponsor an irrevocable, worldwide, royalty free license to use, reproduce, distribute, and display the Entry for any lawful purpose in all media whether now known or hereinafter created. This may include, but is not limited to, the IEEE A ccess website, the IEEE Access YouTube channel, the IEEE Access IEEE TV channel, IEEE Access social media sites (LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, IEEE Access Collabratec Community), and the IEEE Access Xplore page. Facebook/Twitter/Microsite usernames will not be used in any promotional and advertising materials without the Entrants’ expressed approval.
  • Number of Prizes Available, Prizes, Approximate Retail Value and Odds of winning Prizes: Two (2) promotional prizes of $350 USD Amazon gift cards. One (1) grand prize of a $500 USD Amazon gift card. Prizes will be distributed to the winners after the selection of winners is announced. Odds of winning a prize depend on the number of eligible entries received during the Promotional Period. Only the corresponding author of the submitted manuscript will receive the prize.

The grand prize winner may, at Sponsor’ discretion, have his/her article and video highlighted in media such as the IEEE Access Xplore page and the IEEE Access social media sites.

The prize(s) for the Award are being sponsored by IEEE.  No cash in lieu of prize or substitution of prize permitted, except that Sponsor reserves the right to substitute a prize or prize component of equal or greater value in its sole discretion for any reason at time of award.  Sponsor shall not be responsible for service obligations or warranty (if any) in relation to the prize(s). Prize may not be transferred prior to award. All other expenses associated with use of the prize, including, but not limited to local, state, or federal taxes on the Prize, are the sole responsibility of the winner.  Winner(s) understand that delivery of a prize may be void where prohibited by law and agrees that Sponsor shall have no obligation to substitute an alternate prize when so prohibited. Amazon is not a sponsor or affiliated with this Award.

  • Selection of Winners: Promotional prize winners will be selected based on entries received during the Promotional Period. The sponsor will utilize an Editorial Panel to vote on the best video submissions. Editorial Panel members are not eligible to participate in the Award.  Entries will be ranked based on three (3) criteria:
  • Presentation of Technical Content
  • Quality of Video

Upon selecting a winner, the Sponsor will notify the winner via email. All potential winners will be notified via their email provided to the sponsor. Potential winners will have five (5) business days to respond after receiving initial prize notification or the prize may be forfeited and awarded to an alternate winner. Potential winners may be required to sign an affidavit of eligibility, a liability release, and a publicity release.  If requested, these documents must be completed, signed, and returned within ten (10) business days from the date of issuance or the prize will be forfeited and may be awarded to an alternate winner. If prize or prize notification is returned as undeliverable or in the event of noncompliance with these Official Rules, prize will be forfeited and may be awarded to an alternate winner.

  • General Prize Restrictions:  No prize substitutions or transfer of prize permitted, except by the Sponsor. Import/Export taxes, VAT and country taxes on prizes are the sole responsibility of winners. Acceptance of a prize constitutes permission for the Sponsor and its designees to use winner’s name and likeness for advertising, promotional and other purposes in any and all media now and hereafter known without additional compensation unless prohibited by law. Winner acknowledges that neither Sponsor, Award Entities nor their directors, employees, or agents, have made nor are in any manner responsible or liable for any warranty, representation, or guarantee, express or implied, in fact or in law, relative to any prize, including but not limited to its quality, mechanical condition or fitness for a particular purpose. Any and all warranties and/or guarantees on a prize (if any) are subject to the respective manufacturers’ terms therefor, and winners agree to look solely to such manufacturers for any such warranty and/or guarantee.

11.Release, Publicity, and Privacy : By receipt of the Prize and/or, if requested, by signing an affidavit of eligibility and liability/publicity release, the Prize Winner consents to the use of his or her name, likeness, business name and address by Sponsor for advertising and promotional purposes, including but not limited to on Sponsor’s social media pages, without any additional compensation, except where prohibited.  No entries will be returned.  All entries become the property of Sponsor.  The Prize Winner agrees to release and hold harmless Sponsor and its officers, directors, employees, affiliated companies, agents, successors and assigns from and against any claim or cause of action arising out of participation in the Award. 

Sponsor assumes no responsibility for computer system, hardware, software or program malfunctions or other errors, failures, delayed computer transactions or network connections that are human or technical in nature, or for damaged, lost, late, illegible or misdirected entries; technical, hardware, software, electronic or telephone failures of any kind; lost or unavailable network connections; fraudulent, incomplete, garbled or delayed computer transmissions whether caused by Sponsor, the users, or by any of the equipment or programming associated with or utilized in this Award; or by any technical or human error that may occur in the processing of submissions or downloading, that may limit, delay or prevent an entrant’s ability to participate in the Award.

Sponsor reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to cancel or suspend this Award and award a prize from entries received up to the time of termination or suspension should virus, bugs or other causes beyond Sponsor’s control, unauthorized human intervention, malfunction, computer problems, phone line or network hardware or software malfunction, which, in the sole opinion of Sponsor, corrupt, compromise or materially affect the administration, fairness, security or proper play of the Award or proper submission of entries.  Sponsor is not liable for any loss, injury or damage caused, whether directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, from downloading data or otherwise participating in this Award.

Representations and Warranties Regarding Entries: By submitting an Entry, you represent and warrant that your Entry does not and shall not comprise, contain, or describe, as determined in Sponsor’s sole discretion: (A) false statements or any misrepresentations of your affiliation with a person or entity; (B) personally identifying information about you or any other person; (C) statements or other content that is false, deceptive, misleading, scandalous, indecent, obscene, unlawful, defamatory, libelous, fraudulent, tortious, threatening, harassing, hateful, degrading, intimidating, or racially or ethnically offensive; (D) conduct that could be considered a criminal offense, could give rise to criminal or civil liability, or could violate any law; (E) any advertising, promotion or other solicitation, or any third party brand name or trademark; or (F) any virus, worm, Trojan horse, or other harmful code or component. By submitting an Entry, you represent and warrant that you own the full rights to the Entry and have obtained any and all necessary consents, permissions, approvals and licenses to submit the Entry and comply with all of these Official Rules, and that the submitted Entry is your sole original work, has not been previously published, released or distributed, and does not infringe any third-party rights or violate any laws or regulations.

12.Disputes:  EACH ENTRANT AGREES THAT: (1) ANY AND ALL DISPUTES, CLAIMS, AND CAUSES OF ACTION ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AWARD, OR ANY PRIZES AWARDED, SHALL BE RESOLVED INDIVIDUALLY, WITHOUT RESORTING TO ANY FORM OF CLASS ACTION, PURSUANT TO ARBITRATION CONDUCTED UNDER THE COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION RULES OF THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION THEN IN EFFECT, (2) ANY AND ALL CLAIMS, JUDGMENTS AND AWARDS SHALL BE LIMITED TO ACTUAL OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS INCURRED, INCLUDING COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH ENTERING THIS AWARD, BUT IN NO EVENT ATTORNEYS’ FEES; AND (3) UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL ANY ENTRANT BE PERMITTED TO OBTAIN AWARDS FOR, AND ENTRANT HEREBY WAIVES ALL RIGHTS TO CLAIM, PUNITIVE, INCIDENTAL, AND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, AND ANY OTHER DAMAGES, OTHER THAN FOR ACTUAL OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES, AND ANY AND ALL RIGHTS TO HAVE DAMAGES MULTIPLIED OR OTHERWISE INCREASED. ALL ISSUES AND QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE CONSTRUCTION, VALIDITY, INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEABILITY OF THESE OFFICIAL RULES, OR THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF ENTRANT AND SPONSOR IN CONNECTION WITH THE AWARD, SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, WITHOUT GIVING EFFECT TO ANY CHOICE OF LAW OR CONFLICT OF LAW, RULES OR PROVISIONS (WHETHER OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY OR ANY OTHER JURISDICTION) THAT WOULD CAUSE THE APPLICATION OF THE LAWS OF ANY JURISDICTION OTHER THAN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY. SPONSOR IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY TYPOGRAPHICAL OR OTHER ERROR IN THE PRINTING OF THE OFFER OR ADMINISTRATION OF THE AWARD OR IN THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE PRIZES.

  • Limitation of Liability:  The Sponsor, Award Entities and their respective parents, affiliates, divisions, licensees, subsidiaries, and advertising and promotion agencies, and each of the foregoing entities’ respective employees, officers, directors, shareholders and agents (the “Released Parties”) are not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate transfer of entry information, human error, technical malfunction, lost/delayed data transmissions, omission, interruption, deletion, defect, line failures of any telephone network, computer equipment, software or any combination thereof, inability to access web sites, damage to a user’s computer system (hardware and/or software) due to participation in this Award or any other problem or error that may occur. By entering, participants agree to release and hold harmless the Released Parties from and against any and all claims, actions and/or liability for injuries, loss or damage of any kind arising from or in connection with participation in and/or liability for injuries, loss or damage of any kind, to person or property, arising from or in connection with participation in and/or entry into this Award, participation is any Award-related activity or use of any prize won. Entry materials that have been tampered with or altered are void. If for any reason this Award is not capable of running as planned, or if this Award or any website associated therewith (or any portion thereof) becomes corrupted or does not allow the proper playing of this Award and processing of entries per these rules, or if infection by computer virus, bugs, tampering, unauthorized intervention, affect the administration, security, fairness, integrity, or proper conduct of this Award, Sponsor reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to disqualify any individual implicated in such action, and/or to cancel, terminate, modify or suspend this Award or any portion thereof, or to amend these rules without notice. In the event of a dispute as to who submitted an online entry, the entry will be deemed submitted by the authorized account holder the email address submitted at the time of entry. “Authorized Account Holder” is defined as the person assigned to an email address by an Internet access provider, online service provider or other organization responsible for assigning email addresses for the domain associated with the email address in question. Any attempt by an entrant or any other individual to deliberately damage any web site or undermine the legitimate operation of the Award is a violation of criminal and civil laws and should such an attempt be made, the Sponsor reserves the right to seek damages and other remedies from any such person to the fullest extent permitted by law. This Award is governed by the laws of the State of New Jersey and all entrants hereby submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of federal or state courts located in the State of New Jersey for the resolution of all claims and disputes. Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, G+, YouTube, IEEE Xplore , and IEEE TV are not sponsors nor affiliated with this Award.
  • Award Results and Official Rules: To obtain the identity of the prize winner and/or a copy of these Official Rules, send a self-addressed stamped envelope to Kimberly Rybczynski, IEEE, 445 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, NJ 08854-4141 USA.

The IEEE Article Submission Process

After you have written your article and prepared your graphics, you can submit your article for review. Follow these steps to complete the IEEE Article Submission Process.

Select Your Target Journal

An article may be rejected before peer review if it is outside the scope of the journal. Pick the right journal with these tips.

  • Get customized recommendations for your article from the  IEEE Publication Recommender  tool.
  • Conduct a keyword search on  IEEE  Xplore ® Digital Library  for a list of publications with similar content.
  • Check your reference list for related journals.
  • Ask for suggestions from colleagues and co-authors in your field.
  • Read the Aims & Scope of your potential target publications to ensure your article is a good fit. Aims & Scope can be found in the About tab of the journal homepage on IEEE  Xplore .
  • Keep in mind that some publications only accept certain types of articles. Letters publications will accept brief articles, while Transactions or Journal publications will accept full-length articles.

 You can only submit your article to one publication at a time.

Follow All Submission Guidelines

All IEEE journals provide submission guidelines in an “Information for Authors” section, published in the journal or on a society’s website.

To find the guidelines for your target journal:

  • find the journal’s home page on IEEE Xplore ;
  • click on the About Journal tab;
  • click on Publication Details.

Not following guidelines can result in delayed processing of your submission, rejection without review, or errors in your published article. 

Submit Your Article

After checking that your article complies with the target journal’s submission guidelines, you are ready to submit. Click the Submit Your Manuscript button on the journal’s home page on IEEE  Xplore.   You will be taken to the journal’s online submission system, which will walk you through the submission process.

  • SpringerLink shop

Cover letters

A good cover letter can help to “sell” your manuscript to the journal editor. As well as introducing your work to the editor you can also take this opportunity to explain why the manuscript will be of interest to a journal's readers, something which is always as the forefront editors’ mind. As such it is worth spending time writing a coherent and persuasive cover letter.

The following is an example of a poor cover letter:

Dear Editor-in-Chief, I am sending you our manuscript entitled “Large Scale Analysis of Cell Cycle Regulators in bladder cancer” by Researcher et al. We would like to have the manuscript considered for publication in Pathobiology. Please let me know of your decision at your earliest convenience. With my best regards, Sincerely yours, A Researcher, PhD

Instead, check to see whether the journal’s Instructions for Authors have any cover letter requirements (e.g. disclosures, statements, potential reviewers). Then, write a letter that explains why the editor would want to publish your manuscript. The following structure covers all the necessary points that need to be included.

  • If known, address the editor who will be assessing your manuscript by their name. Include the date of submission and the journal you are submitting to.
  • First paragraph: include the title of your manuscript and the type of manuscript it is (e.g. review, research, case study). Then briefly explain the background to your study, the question you sought out to answer and why.
  • Second paragraph: you should concisely explain what was done, the main findings and why they are significant.
  • Third paragraph: here you should indicate why the readers of the journal would be interested in the work. Take your cues from the journal’s aims and scope. For example if the journal requires that all work published has broad implications explain how your study fulfils this. It is also a good idea to include a sentence on the importance of the results to the field.
  • To conclude state the corresponding author and any journal specific requirements that need to be complied with (e.g. ethical standards).

TIP: All cover letters should contain these sentences:

  • We confirm that this manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration by another journal.
  • All authors have approved the manuscript and agree with its submission to [insert the name of the target journal].

Submission checklist

Before submitting your manuscript, thoroughly check its quality one more time. Evaluate it critically—could anything be done better?

Be sure that:

  • The manuscript follows the Instructions for Authors
  • All files are in the correct file format and of the appropriate resolution or size
  • The spelling and grammar are correct
  • You have contact information for all authors
  • You have written a persuasive cover letter

Back │ Next

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • View all journals
  • Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts

Submission Guidelines

When submitting your manuscript, please read the following guidelines, which will help you through the submission and publication process.

1 – What you need to know before initial submission

Make sure Nature Sustainability is the most suitable journal for your work –  Aims and scope 

Check that Nature Sustainability accepts the content type you are working on –  Content types 

Read and understand our policies –  Editorial policies  

Understand our publishing models and costs –  Publishing options 

Does Nature Sustainability accept Presubmission enquiries? –  Presubmission enquiries

Our preprint policy –  Preprint policy and In Review

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2 – Preparing your material for initial submission

Make sure your submission is complete –  Preparing your material

Understand the initial formatting requirements –  Formatting for initial submission

Make sure your manuscript is accurate and readable –  Writing and language

Do you want to participate in Double-blind Peer Review? –  Double-blind Peer review requirements

YOU ARE NOW READY TO SUBMIT YOUR MANUSCRIPT Click ‘Submit manuscript’ and you will be taken to our online submission system, where you can upload the required files and check on the status of your manuscript after submission. You will need to log in; if you do not have an account, you will be able to register for one when you submit.

Submit manuscript

3 – Editorial Process, Peer Review, Appeals & Transfers

Once you have submitted your manuscript, it goes through our editorial process .

If your manuscript is sent out for peer review , you will receive an email asking you to read and sign our Editorial Policies .

To appeal against a decision, or transfer your submission to another journal –  Appeals and Transfers .

4 – Acceptance in Principle & Formatting

If your article is accepted for publication (known as Acceptance in Principle ), you will need to follow the formatting guidelines .

Before final acceptance, we request that corresponding authors of accepted papers link their Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier (ORCID) to their manuscript tracking system account –  ORCID instructions .

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5 – Production & Publication

Once your manuscript is formally accepted, it is sent to Production to prepare for publication –  production process .

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

research paper submission

  • Skip to Guides Search
  • Skip to breadcrumb
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
  • Skip to chat link
  • Report accessibility issues and get help
  • Go to Penn Libraries Home
  • Go to Franklin catalog

Critical Writing Program: Decision Making - Spring 2024: Researching the White Paper

  • Getting started
  • News and Opinion Sites
  • Academic Sources
  • Grey Literature
  • Substantive News Sources
  • What to Do When You Are Stuck
  • Understanding a citation
  • Examples of Quotation
  • Examples of Paraphrase
  • Chicago Manual of Style: Citing Images
  • Researching the Op-Ed
  • Researching Prospective Employers
  • Resume Resources
  • Cover Letter Resources

Research the White Paper

Researching the White Paper:

The process of researching and composing a white paper shares some similarities with the kind of research and writing one does for a high school or college research paper. What’s important for writers of white papers to grasp, however, is how much this genre differs from a research paper.  First, the author of a white paper already recognizes that there is a problem to be solved, a decision to be made, and the job of the author is to provide readers with substantive information to help them make some kind of decision--which may include a decision to do more research because major gaps remain. 

Thus, a white paper author would not “brainstorm” a topic. Instead, the white paper author would get busy figuring out how the problem is defined by those who are experiencing it as a problem. Typically that research begins in popular culture--social media, surveys, interviews, newspapers. Once the author has a handle on how the problem is being defined and experienced, its history and its impact, what people in the trenches believe might be the best or worst ways of addressing it, the author then will turn to academic scholarship as well as “grey” literature (more about that later).  Unlike a school research paper, the author does not set out to argue for or against a particular position, and then devote the majority of effort to finding sources to support the selected position.  Instead, the author sets out in good faith to do as much fact-finding as possible, and thus research is likely to present multiple, conflicting, and overlapping perspectives. When people research out of a genuine desire to understand and solve a problem, they listen to every source that may offer helpful information. They will thus have to do much more analysis, synthesis, and sorting of that information, which will often not fall neatly into a “pro” or “con” camp:  Solution A may, for example, solve one part of the problem but exacerbate another part of the problem. Solution C may sound like what everyone wants, but what if it’s built on a set of data that have been criticized by another reliable source?  And so it goes. 

For example, if you are trying to write a white paper on the opioid crisis, you may focus on the value of  providing free, sterilized needles--which do indeed reduce disease, and also provide an opportunity for the health care provider distributing them to offer addiction treatment to the user. However, the free needles are sometimes discarded on the ground, posing a danger to others; or they may be shared; or they may encourage more drug usage. All of those things can be true at once; a reader will want to know about all of these considerations in order to make an informed decision. That is the challenging job of the white paper author.     
 The research you do for your white paper will require that you identify a specific problem, seek popular culture sources to help define the problem, its history, its significance and impact for people affected by it.  You will then delve into academic and grey literature to learn about the way scholars and others with professional expertise answer these same questions. In this way, you will create creating a layered, complex portrait that provides readers with a substantive exploration useful for deliberating and decision-making. You will also likely need to find or create images, including tables, figures, illustrations or photographs, and you will document all of your sources. 

Business & Research Support Services Librarian

Profile Photo

Connect to a Librarian Live Chat or "Ask a Question"

  • Librarians staff live chat from 9-5 Monday through Friday . You can also text to chat: 215-543-7674
  • You can submit a question 24 hours a day and we aim to respond within 24 hours 
  • You can click the "Schedule Appointment" button above in librarian's profile box (to the left), to schedule a consultation with her in person or by video conference.  
  • You can also make an appointment with a  Librarian by subject specialization . 
  • Connect by email with a subject librarian

Find more easy contacts at our Quick Start Guide

  • Next: Getting started >>
  • Last Updated: Feb 15, 2024 12:28 PM
  • URL: https://guides.library.upenn.edu/spring2024/decision-making

Microsoft CMT

Conference Logo

4th Biennial International Conference on Future Learning Aspects of Mechanical Engineering

Javascript must be enabled for the correct page display.

PSU Mark Shield

  • Find a Person
  • Department Resources

Department of Materials Science and Engineering

  • Department Leadership
  • MatSE Faculty
  • External Advisory Board Members
  • Strategic Plan
  • Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging
  • 115th MatSE Anniversary
  • By The Numbers
  • Faculty Honors and Awards
  • Safety is our Priority
  • Accreditation
  • Materials Visualization Competition (MVC)
  • Lectures in materials
  • Taylor Lecture
  • Tressler Lecture
  • McFarland Award
  • Visit/Contact Us
  • Friends of MatSE
  • Bachelor of Science (B.S.)
  • Undergraduate Minors
  • Laboratory Facilities
  • Major Exploration
  • Undergrad Admissions and Aid
  • Come Visit, Get to Know Us
  • Undergraduate Research
  • Clubs and Organizations
  • Diversity Programs
  • Honors, Exhibitions, and Award Competitions
  • Internships & Career Resources
  • Undergraduate Lab Access
  • Ombudsperson
  • Helpful Penn State Resources
  • Millennium Scholars Program
  • EMSAGE Laureate
  • Ryan Family Student Center
  • How to Apply - IGDP
  • Admission Requirements
  • IGDP Faculty
  • Research Groups
  • Research Videos
  • Masters of Science (M.S.)
  • Accelerated M.S. in MatSE
  • Additive Manufacturing and Design (M.S. and M.Eng)
  • Doctoral Degree (Ph.D.)
  • Computational Materials Doctoral Minor
  • Program Learning Objectives
  • Graduate Course Listing
  • Assistantships, Awards, Scholarships, and Fellowships
  • Graduate Organizations
  • Graduate Poster Competition
  • Accelerated M.S. Poster Session
  • MRS Student Spotlight
  • NSF Graduate Research Fellowships
  • Polymer Physics Seminar
  • Accelerated M.S. Handbook
  • IGDP Handbook
  • Contact Graduate Program
  • Ph.D. Comprehensive Exam
  • 590 Seminars
  • Qualifying Exam Committee Evaluation Form
  • Find a Faculty Member
  • Facilities and Centers
  • Research Focus Areas
  • Job Opportunities
  • For Industry
  • Alumni Spotlight
  • Get Involved
  • EAB Intranet
  • Tenure-line Faculty
  • Research and Teaching Faculty
  • Emeritus Faculty
  • Associated Faculty
  • Lectures in Materials
  • DEIB Events and Programs
  • MatSE Spring Awards
  • Imagine Fall/Winter 2023
  • Imagine Spring/Summer 2023
  • Imagine Fall 2022
  • Imagine Summer 2022
  • Imagine Fall 2021
  • Imagine Summer 2021
  • Imagine Fall 2020
  • Imagine Summer 2020
  • Imagine Fall 2019
  • For the Media
  • News & Events
  • Event Calendar

Call for Abstracts for IMAT 2024

All students are invited to submit an abstract for IMAT 2024 , the premier annual meeting dedicated to addressing the evolving needs of the materials community and industry. This is your opportunity to present your research, engage with industry leaders, and shape the future of materials science and technology.  View Call For Papers!

International Materials Applications & Technologies Conference and Exposition - IMAT (Sep. 28 - Oct. 3, 2024) (September 28 - October 3, 2024)

Theme: Materials for Energy Storage

Abstract submission Deadline: Friday, March 8, 2024

IMAT, the ASM International annual meeting focused on the membership and materials community needs, will offer an industry-oriented conference and exposition targeting a broad range of materials, processes, and their applications, with an emphasis on advanced materials and advanced manufacturing technologies. Traditional materials' topics of strong interest will be explored, including metals, ceramics, composites, coatings, alloy development, microstructure/process/properties relationships, phase equilibria, mechanical behavior, joining, corrosion and failure analysis. A spectrum of emerging topics of common interest, instrumental in advancing materials development and cutting-edge technologies will be covered, such as: advance manufacturing technologies including additive, industry 4.0 and digitization of the materials industry, biomedical/multifunctional materials, power and transportation industries, materials for the energy, renewable and sustainable materials & processes, and materials to enable automation and robotics. Multiple student events and competitions will be offered to provide an arena for presentation of students' research and develop connections to the next generation of materials scientists.

  • Get Inspired
  • Announcements

Gemini 1.5: Our next-generation model, now available for Private Preview in Google AI Studio

February 15, 2024

research paper submission

Last week, we released Gemini 1.0 Ultra in Gemini Advanced. You can try it out now by signing up for a Gemini Advanced subscription . The 1.0 Ultra model, accessible via the Gemini API, has seen a lot of interest and continues to roll out to select developers and partners in Google AI Studio .

Today, we’re also excited to introduce our next-generation Gemini 1.5 model , which uses a new Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) approach to improve efficiency. It routes your request to a group of smaller "expert” neural networks so responses are faster and higher quality.

Developers can sign up for our Private Preview of Gemini 1.5 Pro , our mid-sized multimodal model optimized for scaling across a wide-range of tasks. The model features a new, experimental 1 million token context window, and will be available to try out in  Google AI Studio . Google AI Studio is the fastest way to build with Gemini models and enables developers to easily integrate the Gemini API in their applications. It’s available in 38 languages across 180+ countries and territories .

1,000,000 tokens: Unlocking new use cases for developers

Before today, the largest context window in the world for a publicly available large language model was 200,000 tokens. We’ve been able to significantly increase this — running up to 1 million tokens consistently, achieving the longest context window of any large-scale foundation model. Gemini 1.5 Pro will come with a 128,000 token context window by default, but today’s Private Preview will have access to the experimental 1 million token context window.

We’re excited about the new possibilities that larger context windows enable. You can directly upload large PDFs, code repositories, or even lengthy videos as prompts in Google AI Studio. Gemini 1.5 Pro will then reason across modalities and output text.

Upload multiple files and ask questions We’ve added the ability for developers to upload multiple files, like PDFs, and ask questions in Google AI Studio. The larger context window allows the model to take in more information — making the output more consistent, relevant and useful. With this 1 million token context window, we’ve been able to load in over 700,000 words of text in one go. Gemini 1.5 Pro can find and reason from particular quotes across the Apollo 11 PDF transcript. 
[Video sped up for demo purposes]
Query an entire code repository The large context window also enables a deep analysis of an entire codebase, helping Gemini models grasp complex relationships, patterns, and understanding of code. A developer could upload a new codebase directly from their computer or via Google Drive, and use the model to onboard quickly and gain an understanding of the code. Gemini 1.5 Pro can help developers boost productivity when learning a new codebase.  
Add a full length video Gemini 1.5 Pro can also reason across up to 1 hour of video. When you attach a video, Google AI Studio breaks it down into thousands of frames (without audio), and then you can perform highly sophisticated reasoning and problem-solving tasks since the Gemini models are multimodal. Gemini 1.5 Pro can perform reasoning and problem-solving tasks across video and other visual inputs.  

More ways for developers to build with Gemini models

In addition to bringing you the latest model innovations, we’re also making it easier for you to build with Gemini:

Easy tuning. Provide a set of examples, and you can customize Gemini for your specific needs in minutes from inside Google AI Studio. This feature rolls out in the next few days. 
New developer surfaces . Integrate the Gemini API to build new AI-powered features today with new Firebase Extensions , across your development workspace in Project IDX , or with our newly released Google AI Dart SDK . 
Lower pricing for Gemini 1.0 Pro . We’re also updating the 1.0 Pro model, which offers a good balance of cost and performance for many AI tasks. Today’s stable version is priced 50% less for text inputs and 25% less for outputs than previously announced. The upcoming pay-as-you-go plans for AI Studio are coming soon.

Since December, developers of all sizes have been building with Gemini models, and we’re excited to turn cutting edge research into early developer products in Google AI Studio . Expect some latency in this preview version due to the experimental nature of the large context window feature, but we’re excited to start a phased rollout as we continue to fine-tune the model and get your feedback. We hope you enjoy experimenting with it early on, like we have.

IMAGES

  1. Format of submitting research paper

    research paper submission

  2. to Abstract Submission Template

    research paper submission

  3. Developing a Final Draft of a Research Paper

    research paper submission

  4. Where to Submit Research Paper? Quick Guide for Authors

    research paper submission

  5. Submit Your Research Paper

    research paper submission

  6. Sample Research Paper Proposal Submission Form

    research paper submission

VIDEO

  1. Research Paper Writing online Workshop

  2. Lecture No. 5, How to Write a Research Paper

  3. Guidelines for Registration and Paper Submission

  4. Online Workshop on Research Paper Writing & Publishing Day 2

  5. Secret To Writing A Research Paper

  6. 40th ISOC Paper Submission Guide

COMMENTS

  1. Publish with Elsevier: Step by step

    1. Find a journal 2. Prepare your paper 3. Submit and revise 4. Track your paper 5. Share and promote 1. Find a journal Find out the journals that could be best suited for publishing your research. For a comprehensive list of Elsevier journals check our Journal Catalogue.

  2. Submission guidelines

    When creating and submitting digital files, please follow the guidelines below. Failure to do so, or to adhere to the following guidelines, can significantly delay publication of your work ...

  3. How to Submit a Paper for Publication in a Journal

    How to Submit a Paper for Publication in a Journal 4 minute read 70.9K views Table of Contents What to Expect of the Scientific Publishing Process Scientific Paper Submission. Are you ready? Let's go! The Science of Article Publishing

  4. Preparing and submitting your paper

    Preparing and submitting your paper Publishing an accepted paper Signing journal author agreements during the Covid-19 lockdown period Promoting your published paper Measuring impact Journals artwork guide Using ORCID Open access waivers and discounts Read and publish agreements User Guides Frequently Asked Questions Language services

  5. Submission Portal

    Submission Portal. Submit to the world's largest public repository of biological and scientific information. Type a few words about the sequence data you are submitting and select an option to learn more. You can also browse submission information below. Enter a few words about your sequence data.

  6. Initial submission

    Submissions for Articles, Reviews and Perspectives, and Matters Arising must be submitted via our online submission system. Please follow these guidelines to ensure that your submission...

  7. Submission

    To submit to the journal of your choice, click the Submit Manuscript button on the journal's homepage. The link leads you directly to the submission system used by that journal, which is either Editorial Manager, Manuscript Central or Snapp. Include your ORCID iD

  8. Making your submission

    Once you've chosen the right journal for your research and written your paper, it's time to make your submission. ... Expect to know how to submit a paper for publication in a journal by the time you are through. Jump to section. Preparing your submission. Follow these 5 steps to prepare for your submission. 1. Read your chosen journal's ...

  9. How to Write a Research Paper

    Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes. Table of contents Understand the assignment Choose a research paper topic Conduct preliminary research Develop a thesis statement Create a research paper outline Write a first draft of the research paper Write the introduction

  10. Submitting your paper

    It is now time for you to submit! In this section, we will prepare you for what to expect when submitting to a journal, give some insights into the peer review process, how to respond to requests for revisions and resubmit a paper, and what steps to take should you receive a rejection decision. Peer review - What to expect as an author? Watch on

  11. Instructions for Authors

    Research Letters are concise, focused reports of original research. ... After manuscript submission, all authors of papers under consideration for publication will be sent a link to the Authorship Form to complete and submit. See other details in these instructions for additional requirements. 2,4. Back to top.

  12. General submission policies

    File names and case sensitivity. arXiv will accept only the following characters in file names: a-z A-Z 0-9 _ + - . , =. File names that contain other characters (e.g., spaces, question marks, asterisks) will be rejected. These restrictions ensure maximum portability of the stored files and minimize archival risk.

  13. How to write a cover letter for journal submission

    Name of the journal you are submitting to. Statement that your paper has not been previously published and is not currently under consideration by another journal. Brief description of the research you are reporting in your paper, why it is important, and why you think the readers of the journal would be interested in it.

  14. PDF Guide for Author's Manuscript Submission

    Abstract. The abstract should appear on a separate page, immediately following the title page. The abstract should not exceed 150 words. Immediately below the abstract on the same page should appear a list of 4-5 keywords. Text. The text of the article should begin on a new page.

  15. Submission Guidelines

    A list and description of manuscript types are listed below. If you are unsure, please leave it as "Research Article".

  16. Submission Guidelines: SAGE Open: Sage Journals

    Submit paper. Please read the guidelines below before visiting the submission site! Submission site opens in a new tab. ... 4.6 Research ethics and patient consent. Research involving human subjects must be conducted according to the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki.

  17. The IEEE Article Submission Process

    After checking that your article complies with the target journal's submission guidelines, you are ready to submit. Click the Submit Your Manuscript button on the journal's home page on IEEE Xplore. You will be taken to the journal's online submission system, which will walk you through the submission process.

  18. Submission Guidelines

    Submission types. There are 4 types of submissions: Focused Technical, Context and Challenge, Regular Manuscripts, and Lengthy Manuscripts. The final published manuscript does not designate the submission category in the title. a. A focused technical paper is a short paper that has results on a technical problem of broad interest to the OR ...

  19. Cover letters

    A Researcher, PhD Instead, check to see whether the journal's Instructions for Authors have any cover letter requirements (e.g. disclosures, statements, potential reviewers). Then, write a letter that explains why the editor would want to publish your manuscript. The following structure covers all the necessary points that need to be included.

  20. Submission Guidelines: American Sociological Review: Sage Journals

    Submit paper. Please read the guidelines below before visiting the submission site! Submission site opens in a new tab. Manuscript Submission Guidelines: ... on data-sharing: "As a regular practice, sociologists share data and pertinent documentation as an integral part of a research plan. Sociologists generally make their data available ...

  21. Submission Guidelines

    1 - What you need to know before initial submission. Make sure Nature Sustainability is the most suitable journal for your work - Aims and scope. Check that Nature Sustainability accepts the ...

  22. Researching the White Paper

    The research you do for your white paper will require that you identify a specific problem, seek popular culture sources to help define the problem, its history, its significance and impact for people affected by it. ... You can submit a question 24 hours a day and we aim to respond within 24 hours ; You can click the "Schedule Appointment ...

  23. Conference Management Toolkit

    Microsoft's Conference Management Toolkit is a hosted academic conference management system. Modern interface, high scalability, extensive features and outstanding support are the signatures of Microsoft CMT.

  24. Call for Abstracts for IMAT 2024

    All students are invited to submit an abstract for IMAT 2024, the premier annual meeting dedicated to addressing the evolving needs of the materials community and industry. This is your opportunity to present your research, engage with industry leaders, and shape the future of materials science and technology. View Call For Papers! International Materials Applications & Technologies Conference ...

  25. Submission Guidelines: Research Ethics: Sage Journals

    Submit paper. Please read the guidelines below before visiting the submission site! Submission site opens in a new tab. Manuscript Submission Guidelines: ... Please include these details on the title page of your submission. For research articles, authors are also required to state in the methods section whether participants provided informed ...

  26. [2402.05929] An Interactive Agent Foundation Model

    The development of artificial intelligence systems is transitioning from creating static, task-specific models to dynamic, agent-based systems capable of performing well in a wide range of applications. We propose an Interactive Agent Foundation Model that uses a novel multi-task agent training paradigm for training AI agents across a wide range of domains, datasets, and tasks. Our training ...

  27. Gemini 1.5: Our next-generation model, now available for Private

    Posted by Jaclyn Konzelmann and Wiktor Gworek - Google Labs. Last week, we released Gemini 1.0 Ultra in Gemini Advanced. You can try it out now by signing up for a Gemini Advanced subscription.The 1.0 Ultra model, accessible via the Gemini API, has seen a lot of interest and continues to roll out to select developers and partners in Google AI Studio.