brief report vs research article

• SpringerLink shop

Types of journal articles

It is helpful to familiarise yourself with the different types of articles published by journals. Although it may appear there are a large number of types of articles published due to the wide variety of names they are published under, most articles published are one of the following types; Original Research, Review Articles, Short reports or Letters, Case Studies, Methodologies.

Original Research:

This is the most common type of journal manuscript used to publish full reports of data from research. It may be called an  Original Article, Research Article, Research, or just  Article, depending on the journal. The Original Research format is suitable for many different fields and different types of studies. It includes full Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion sections.

Short reports or Letters:

These papers communicate brief reports of data from original research that editors believe will be interesting to many researchers, and that will likely stimulate further research in the field. As they are relatively short the format is useful for scientists with results that are time sensitive (for example, those in highly competitive or quickly-changing disciplines). This format often has strict length limits, so some experimental details may not be published until the authors write a full Original Research manuscript. These papers are also sometimes called Brief communications .

Review Articles:

Review Articles provide a comprehensive summary of research on a certain topic, and a perspective on the state of the field and where it is heading. They are often written by leaders in a particular discipline after invitation from the editors of a journal. Reviews are often widely read (for example, by researchers looking for a full introduction to a field) and highly cited. Reviews commonly cite approximately 100 primary research articles.

TIP: If you would like to write a Review but have not been invited by a journal, be sure to check the journal website as some journals to not consider unsolicited Reviews. If the website does not mention whether Reviews are commissioned it is wise to send a pre-submission enquiry letter to the journal editor to propose your Review manuscript before you spend time writing it.  

Case Studies:

These articles report specific instances of interesting phenomena. A goal of Case Studies is to make other researchers aware of the possibility that a specific phenomenon might occur. This type of study is often used in medicine to report the occurrence of previously unknown or emerging pathologies.

Methodologies or Methods

These articles present a new experimental method, test or procedure. The method described may either be completely new, or may offer a better version of an existing method. The article should describe a demonstrable advance on what is currently available.

Back │ Next

Medical Student Research Journal

Michigan state university college of human medicine.

Guidelines – Brief Report

Brief reports are similar to original research in that they follow the same rigor, format and guidelines, but are designed for small-scale research or research that is in early stages of development. These may include preliminary studies that utilize a simple research design or a small sample size and that have produced limited pilot data and initial findings that indicate need for further investigation.  Brief reports are much shorter than manuscripts associated with a more advanced, larger-scale research project.  They are not meant to be used for a short version of an article about research that would otherwise qualify for a full original research manuscript or for publishing material on research that lacks significance, is not rigorous or, if expanded, would not qualify for a full article or for research.

Order of Sections

Introduction

• Illustrations (Figure/Tables)

Manuscript Limits

• Total Length: up to 1500 words (not including abstract, illustrations, and references)
• Abstract Length: up to 150 words
• Table/Figure Limits: up to 3 tables and figures
• References: up to 40 references

The title page should carry the following information:

• Article Title (concise information about the study, limited to 100 characters)
• Author Names (Mark D. Smith B.S. 1* , Jeremy Michael Howes M.S. 2 , Jessica P. Masters M.D. Ph. D. 1,2 )
• Institutional Affiliations of all authors in order of appearance in author names ( 1 College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA. 2 Dept. of Internal Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA)
• Contact information for corresponding author(s) including address, email, phone, and fax. The corresponding author should indicate clearly whether his or her e-mail address can be published. Corresponding author(s) is indicated with asterisk by name in author listing; the medical students should be corresponding author.
• Short Title (50 character limit shorter title for headers)
• Key Phrases – Relevant words or short phrases that aid search engines or indexes in finding your work (use MeSH headings if possible). Use key phrases that are not present in the title. Maximum of 6, e.g. (Pemphigus, Bullous Skin Disorder, Autoimmune, Blistering, Skin Diseases, Monoclonal Antibody)
• Disclaimers, if any
• Word Count: Abstract and Body (excluding abstract, illustrations, and references)
• Table and Figure Count
• Source(s) of support in the form of grants, equipment, drugs, or all of these
• Conflict of Interest Statement

Abstracts are the only substantive portion of the article indexed in many electronic databases, and the only portion many readers read. Authors must be careful that they accurately reflect the content of the article in the abstract. This description should include:

• Context or background for the study
• Purpose, basic procedures, main findings, and principal conclusions
• Emphasis on new and important aspects of the study or observations
• No references, illustrations, or references to illustrations are allowed in the abstract
• The abstract should be structured with similar headings as in the main article (e.g. introduction, patient profile, interventions, conclusions)

Provide a context or background for the study including the nature of the problem and its significance to medical learners and scientists. State the specific purpose or research objective tested by the study; the research objective is often more sharply focused when stated as a question. Both the main and secondary objectives should be clear, and any pre-specified subgroup analyses should be described. Provide only directly pertinent references, and do not include data or conclusions from the work being reported.

The methods section should include information on materials, methods and procedures in sufficient detail such that the study can be repeated and/or validated. The methods section should include only information that was available at the time the plan or protocol for the study was being written; all information obtained during the study belongs in the results section. The methods section is comprised of the following subheadings (if applicable):

Selection and Description of Participants

Describe your selection of the observational or experimental participants clearly, including eligibility and exclusion criteria and a description of the source population. Explain the use of variables such as gender and age when they are included in a study report–for example, authors should explain why only participants of certain ages were included or why women were excluded. The guiding principle should be clarity about how and why a study was done in a particular way.

Technical Information

Identify the methods, apparatus (give the manufacturer’s name, city, and state in parentheses), and procedures in sufficient detail to allow others to reproduce the results. Give references to established methods, including statistical methods, describe new or substantially modified methods, give the reasons for using them, and evaluate their limitations.

Describe statistical methods with enough detail to enable a knowledgeable reader with access to the original data to verify the reported results. Avoid relying solely on statistical hypothesis testing, such as p-values, which fail to convey important information about effect size, but include averages with confidence intervals if available, in addition to the p-values. Define statistical terms, abbreviations, and most symbols. Specify the computer software used.

Present your results in logical sequence in the text, tables, and illustrations, giving the main or most important findings first. Do not repeat all the data in the tables or illustrations in the text; emphasize or summarize only the most important observations. Extra or supplementary materials and technical detail can be placed in an appendix. Restrict tables and figures to those needed to explain the argument of the paper and to assess supporting data. Avoid interpreting the data, as this section is pure information that the reader can interpret for themselves; the authors’ own interpretation of the data is meant for the discussion section of the manuscript.

Emphasize the new and important aspects of the study and the conclusions that follow from them. For experimental studies, it is useful to begin the discussion by summarizing briefly the main findings, then explore possible mechanisms or explanations for these findings, compare and contrast the results with other relevant studies, state the limitations of the study, and explore the implications of the findings for future research and for clinical practice.

Limitations : Because every experiment or project can always be improved, a healthy discussion of the limitations of the study should be included. All manuscripts should include a brief discussion on the adequacy of the research methods to draw a valid conclusion. Authors should comment on changes that would improve the methods of the study or reasons why the methods are able to draw a strong conclusion. The discussion of limitations should not be a separate heading or sub-heading in the actual manuscript, but should be a flowing part of the discussion section.

Please see the directions for formatting References .

Illustrations (Figures and Tables)

Should follow the same format as mentioned in the General Guidelines .

Copyright Notice

The Medical Student Research Journal is a scholarly journal by medical students supported by Michigan State University College of Human Medicine.

Authors grant unrestricted copyright license to MSRJ while retaining full copyright to their works. This means authors may distribute their work at their discretion, but may not alter the final product as published by MSRJ. Permissions for reproduction of final published article are granted by MSRJ, while pre-publication works are distributable at authors’ discretion.

Michigan State University logos used with permission.

Privacy Statement

The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.

Disclosures Please view our disclosures available on the general guidelines here .

This page was last updated on 2/15/2014 KCP.

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• Access provided by Google Indexer
• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs

About The BMJ

• Resources for authors

Article types and preparation

At The BMJ , we offer authors the opportunity to submit a range of article types. You can find out more about preparing and submitting a particular style of article by clicking on the links below. Please take the time to explore these instructions before proceeding with a submission. Further details about each of these individual sections and article types are discussed further down this page.

Article Types at The BMJ

Requirements for all manuscripts.

Please ensure that anything you submit to The BMJ conforms to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals  uniform recommendations for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals.

Before submitting an article, please ensure that you have followed all guidelines below. We recommend learning about our house style and ways to incorporate images into your submission .

Title page and authorship

The title should be informative and, for research papers, a subtitle with the study design (for example, "a phase III clinical trial" or "a systematic review and meta-analysis").

In this page, please provide for each author his or her name, affiliation (job title) at the time the paper was written, email and, for the corresponding author, the best contact address. All authors must fulfill the ICMJE criteria for authorship . If the number of authors is very large we may ask for confirmation that everyone listed met the ICMJE criteria for authorship . We also offer the option of joint first authorship when two authors meet criteria for such a designation. We reserve the right to require that authors form a group whose name will appear in the article byline. MEDLINE guidance explains that group authorship is acceptable, stating "When a group name for a specific consortium, committee, study group, or the like appears in an article byline, the personal names of the members of that group may be published in the article text. Such names are entered as collaborator names for the MEDLINE citation."

Further details about The BMJ 's stance on authorship, contributorship, and group authorship can be found on our Authorship and contributorship page.

Please note that from 30 November 2018 The BMJ is mandating ORCiD iDs for corresponding authors for all research articles if accepted, and this information will be required alongside submitted manuscripts. Co-authors and reviewers are strongly encouraged to also connect their ScholarOne accounts to ORCiD. We firmly believe that the increased use and integration of ORCiD iDs will be beneficial for the whole research community. For those who do not currently have an iD they will be required to register but this is free and takes a matter of seconds - we strongly encourage all authors to register for an ORCiD profile .

To learn more about ORCiD, please visit http://orcid.org/content/initiative

Contributor and guarantor information

Each contributorship statement should make clear who has contributed what to the planning, conduct, and reporting of the work described in the article, and should identify one, or occasionally more, contributor(s) as being responsible for the overall content as guarantor(s). The guarantor accepts full responsibility for the work and/or the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish. The following line should also be included - "The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted."

For articles in The BMJ that do not report original research - such as editorials, clinical reviews, and education and debate - please state who had the idea for the article, who performed the literature search, who wrote the article, and who is the guarantor (the contributor who accepts full responsibility for the finished article, had access to any data, and controlled the decision to publish). For non-research articles that include case reports such as lessons of the week, drug points, and interactive case reports, please also state who identified and/or managed the case(s). We encourage authors to fully acknowledge the contribution of patients and the public to their research where appropriate.

Copyright/license for publication

Since January 2000, The BMJ has not asked authors of journal articles to assign us their copyright and authors (or their employers) retain their copyright in the article. All we require from authors is an exclusive licence (or, from government employees who cannot grant this, a non-exclusive licence) that allows us to publish the article in The BMJ (including any derivative products) and any other BMJ products (such as the Student BMJ or overseas editions), and allows us to sublicense such rights and exploit all subsidiary rights.

We ask the corresponding author to grant this exclusive licence (or non-exclusive for government employees) on behalf of all authors by reading our licence and inserting in the manuscript on submission the following statement:

“The Corresponding Author has the right to grant on behalf of all authors and does grant on behalf of all authors, a worldwide licence to the Publishers and its licensees in perpetuity, in all forms, formats and media (whether known now or created in the future), to i) publish, reproduce, distribute, display and store the Contribution, ii) translate the Contribution into other languages, create adaptations, reprints, include within collections and create summaries, extracts and/or, abstracts of the Contribution, iii) create any other derivative work(s) based on the Contribution, iv) to exploit all subsidiary rights in the Contribution, v) the inclusion of electronic links from the Contribution to third party material where-ever it may be located; and, vi) licence any third party to do any or all of the above."

This licence allows authors to use their own articles for their own non-commercial purposes without seeking permission from us. Only if the use is commercial do we need to know about it. In addition, we will pay authors a royalty on certain commercial uses that we negotiate.

Information on permissions for authors and third parties for reuse can be found here .

Manuscripts authored or co-authored by one or more NIH employees must be submitted with a completed and signed NIH Publishing Agreement and Manuscript Cover Sheet according to NIH’s Employee Procedures .

Patient consent (if applicable)

Publication of any personal information about a patient in The BMJ - for example, in a case report or clinical photograph - will normally require the signed consent of the patient. If this is the case, please include a statement that any identifiable patients have provided their signed consent to publication and submit, as a supplemental file, The BMJ 's patient consent form that is available in several languages .

Competing interests declaration

A competing interest - often called a conflict of interest - exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as patients' welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain, academic promotion, or personal rivalry). It may arise for the authors of an article in The BMJ when they have a financial interest that may influence, probably without their knowing, their interpretation of their results or those of others.

We believe that, to make the best decision on how to deal with an article, we should know about any competing interests that authors may have, and that if we publish the article readers should know about them too. We are not aiming to eradicate such interests across all article types in The BMJ . However, certain articles (see below) fall under a stricter policy announced in 2014 . This means that authors whose financial conflicts of interest are judged to be relevant by the BMJ team are not permitted to write these articles. We also ask our staff and reviewers to declare any competing interests.

A declaration of interests for all authors must be received before an article can be reviewed and accepted for publication. It should take one of two forms, depending on what type of article you are submitting. The links to the relevant forms are provided at the end of this section.

For editorials and education articles (excluding State Of The Art reviews and Therapeutics articles)

Since 2014, The BMJ requires that such articles must be written by authors without relevant financial ties to industry . By "industry" we mean companies producing drugs, medical foods, nutraceuticals, devices, apps or tests; medical education companies; or other companies with a financial or reputational interest in the topic of the article. We consider the following relationships with industry to be relevant, making it unlikely that we would be able to publish your work: employment; ownership of stocks and shares (this excludes mutual funds or other situations in which the person is not in a position to control investment decisions) ; travel and accommodation expenses; paid consultancy or directorship; patent ownership; aid membership of speakers' panels or bureaus and advisory board; acting as an expert witness ; being in receipt of a fellowship, equipment, writing, or administrative support; writing or consulting for a medical education promotional or communications company. If you are in doubt about the relevance of any potential conflict of interest please discuss with the editor of the appropriate section before submission.

All authors must review the updated COI policy and complete The BMJ 's Education Declaration of Interests form . If the article is accepted for publication these completed forms will be stored and made available on request. The corresponding author should insert within their manuscript a summary statement derived from the information provided in the COI forms (link below): " I/We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare the following interests: [list them or state that you have none]."

Examples of different sorts of summary statements:

No competing interests : "We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare that we have no competing interests."

Competing interests disclosed: " We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare the following interests: AA is an unpaid member of XX group developing guidelines for ZZ."

For Research and RMR papers

We ask authors of research papers to use a revised version of the ICMJE’s unified disclosure form . The unified form can be used for several journals. Each journal, will, however, integrate the form into its processes in different ways.

Authors must disclose three types of information:

Associations with commercial entities that provided support for the work reported in the submitted manuscript (the timeframe for disclosure in this section of the form is the lifespan of the work being reported).

Associations with commercial entities that could be viewed as having an interest in the general area of the submitted manuscript (in the three years before submission of the manuscript).

Non-financial associations that may be relevant or seen as relevant to the submitted manuscript.

All authors must complete the disclosure form and send it to the corresponding author who will use the information in the forms to craft the COI statement for the paper (examples provided below). The statement but not the forms must be included with the submission. and that must be included with the initial submission. If the paper is accepted, these forms will be required and will be published alongside the article.

The statement in the manuscript should take the following format:

"Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work [or describe if any]; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years [or describe if any]; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work [or describe if any].”

Examples of statements:

No competing interests: "All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work."

Grant funding for research but no other competing interest: "All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: all authors had financial support from ABC Company for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work."

Mixed competing interests: "All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; AB has received research grants and honorariums from XYZ company, BF has been paid for developing and delivering educational presentations for BBB foundation, DF does consultancy for HHH and VVV companies; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work."

For all other papers

Complete The BMJ 's Disclosure form . We do not need to receive signed copies of the statements regarding competing interests or the licence to publication: these are for information only. When submitting your article (or a revised version of it) you will be prompted at our online editorial office to tick two boxes , confirming that you have read and complied with our policies on competing interests and licence to publication. Please also ensure that your manuscript, whether in original or revised form, also includes your written statements of competing interests and licence to publication.

Additional requirements by Article Type

In addition to the above, all of our articles have additional requirements which should be fulfilled before submitting. For more information on any of the requirements below, please contact [email protected] .

We have produced a checklist to help authors decide whether The BMJ is the right journal for their research. If the work does not seem to fit in The BMJ , it may be better sent straight to another journal with a more specialist or local readership or a higher acceptance rate.

To learn more about the kind of research articles we give priority to, and what services we offer to authors of research, please read the editorial "Publishing your research study in the BMJ ?" . Please note that we welcome studies - even with "negative" results - as long as their research questions are important, new, and relevant to general readers and their designs are appropriate and robust.

Word count and style

To encourage full and transparent reporting of research we do not set fixed word count limits for research articles. Nonetheless, we ask you to make your article concise and make every word count. You will be prompted to provide the word count for the main text (excluding the abstract, references, tables, boxes, or figures) when you submit your manuscript.

Original research articles should follow the IMRaD style (introduction, methods, results, and discussion) and should include a structured abstract (see below), a structured discussion, and a succinct introduction that focuses - in no more than three paragraphs - on the background to the research question.

For an intervention study, the manuscript should include enough information about the intervention(s) and comparator(s) (even if this was usual care) for reviewers and readers to understand fully what happened in the study. To enable readers to replicate your work or implement the interventions in their own practice, please also provide any relevant detailed descriptions and materials (uploaded as one or more supplemental files, including video and audio files where appropriate). Alternatively, please provide in the manuscript URLs to openly accessible websites where these materials can be found.

Please ensure that the discussion section of your article comprises no more than a page and a half and follows this overall structure, although you do not need to signpost these elements with subheadings:

• Statement of principal findings • Strengths and weaknesses of the study • Strengths and weaknesses in relation to other studies, discussing important differences in results • Meaning of the study: possible explanations and implications for clinicians and policymakers • Unanswered questions and future research

This video gives more detailed advice on writing each section of a research paper for The BMJ .

Structured abstract

Please ensure that the structured abstract is as complete, accurate, and clear as possible and has been approved by all authors. We may screen original research articles by reading only the abstract.

Abstracts should be 250- 300 words long: you may need up to 400 words, however, for a CONSORT or PRISMA style abstract. MEDLINE can now handle up to 600 words. Abstracts should include the following headings, but they may be modified for abstracts of clinical trials or systematic reviews and meta-analyses according to the requirements on the the CONSORT extension for abstracts and the PRISMA extension for abstracts , respectively.

• Objectives - a clear statement of the main aim of the study and the major hypothesis tested or research question posed • Design - including factors such as prospective, randomisation, blinding, placebo control, case control, crossover, criterion standards for diagnostic tests, etc. • Setting - include the level of care, eg primary, secondary; number of participating centres. Be general rather than give the name of the specific centre, but give the geographical location if this is important • Participants (instead of patients or subjects) - numbers entering and completing the study, sex, and ethnic group if appropriate. Give clear definitions of how selected, entry and exclusion criteria. • Interventions - what, how, when and for how long. This heading can be deleted if there were no interventions but should normally be included for randomised controlled trials, crossover trials, and before and after studies. • Main outcome measures - those planned in the protocol, those finally measured (if different, explain why). • Results - main results with (for quantitative studies) 95% confidence intervals and, where appropriate, the exact level of statistical significance and the number need to treat/harm. Whenever possible, state absolute rather than relative risks. • Conclusions - primary conclusions and their implications, suggesting areas for further research if appropriate. Do not go beyond the data in the article. Conclusions are important because this is often the only part that readers look at. • Trial registration - registry and number (for clinical trials and, if available, for observational studies and systematic reviews).

When writing your abstract, use the active voice but avoid "we did" or "we found". Numbers over 10 do not need spelling out at the start of sentences. p-values should always be accompanied by supporting data, and denominators should be given for percentages. Confidence intervals should be written in the format (15 to 27) within parentheses, using the word "to" rather than a hyphen. Abstracts do not need references.

Statistical issues

We want your piece to be easy to read but also as scientifically accurate as possible. We encourage authors to review the "Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature or The SAMPL Guidelines" while preparing their manuscript.

Whenever possible, state absolute rather than relative risks. Please include in the results section of your structured abstract (and in the article's results section) the following terms, as appropriate:

For a clinical trial:

• Absolute event rates among experimental and control groups. • RRR (relative risk reduction). • NNT or NNH (number needed to treat or harm) and its 95% confidence interval (or, if the trial is of a public health intervention, number helped per 1000 or 100,000).

For a cohort study:

• Absolute event rates over time (eg 10 years) among exposed and non-exposed groups • RRR (relative risk reduction)

For a case control study:

• OR (odds ratio) for strength of association between exposure and outcome

For a study of a diagnostic test:

• Sensitivity and specificity • PPV and NPV (positive and negative predictive values)

The box stating 'what is known' and 'what this study adds' should also reflect accurately the above information. Under what this study adds, please give the one most useful summary statistic eg NNT.

Please do not use the term 'negative' to describe studies that have not found statistically significant differences, perhaps because they were too small. There will always be some uncertainty, and we hope you will be as explicit as possible in reporting what you have found in your study. Using wording such as "our results are compatible with a decrease of this much or an increase of this much" or 'this study found no effect' is more accurate and helpful to readers than "there was no effect/no difference." Please use such wording throughout the article, including the structured abstract and the box stating what the paper adds.

Provide one or more references for the statistical package(s) used to analyse the data - for example, RevMan for a systematic review. There is no need to provide a formal reference for a very widely used package that will be familiar to general readers - for example, Stata - but please say in the text which version you used.

Reporting guidelines

Reporting guidelines promote clear reporting of methods and results to allow critical appraisal of the manuscript. We ask that all manuscripts be written in accordance with the appropriate reporting guideline. Please submit as supplemental material the appropriate reporting guideline checklist showing on which page of your manuscript each checklist item appears. A complete list of guidelines can be found in the website of the Equator Network . Below is the list of most often used checklists but others may apply.

For a clinical trials , use the CONSORT checklist and also include a structured abstract that follows the CONSORT extension for abstract checklist, the CONSORT flowchart and, where applicable, the appropriate CONSORT extension statements (for example, for cluster RCTs, pragmatic trials, etc.). A completed TIDieR checklist is also helpful as this helps to ensure that trial interventions are fully described in ways that are reproducible, usable by other clinicians, and clear enough for systematic reviewers and guideline writers.

For systematic reviews or meta-analysis of randomised trials and other evaluation studies, use the PRISMA checklist and flowchart and use the PRISMA structured abstract checklist when writing the structured abstract.

For studies of diagnostic accuracy , use the STARD checklist and flowchart.

For observational studies , use the STROBE checklist and any appropriate extension STROBE extensions.

For genetic risk prediction studies, use GRIPS .

For economic evaluation studies , use CHEERS .

For studies developing, validating or updating a prediction model , use TRIPOD .

For articles that include explicit statements of the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations, we prefer reporting using the GRADE system.

For studies using data from electronic health records, please use CODE-EHR .

Cover letter

A cover letter is your opportunity to introduce your study to the editor, highlighting the most important findings and novelty. Please also include in the letter the following information:

Mandatory patient and public involvement reporting

The BMJ is encouraging active patient and public involvement in clinical research as part of its patient partnership strategy . This is research which is "co produced" with patients, carers, or members of the public. Patient involvement in this context is not about being a research participant, answering surveys, or being an interviewee. It encompasses setting research priorities, defining research questions and outcome measures, providing input into study design and conduct, dissemination of results, and evaluation.

To support co production of research we request that authors provide a short paragraph as a subsection within the methods section of their papers entitled Patient and Public Involvement detailing how they involved the patients and the public in their research. We request this to both encourage the movement and ensure that BMJ readers can easily see whether, and if so how, patients and the public were involved in the research. If they were not involved in any way this information should be formally documented in the Patient and Public Involvement section.

As co production of research with patients and the public is relatively new we appreciate that not all authors will have involved them in their studies. We also appreciate that patient / public involvement may not be feasible or appropriate for all papers. We therefore continue to consider papers where they were not involved.

The Patient and Public Involvement section should provide a brief response to the following questions, tailored as appropriate for the study design reported:

• At what stage in the research process were patients/public first involved in the research and how? • How were the research question(s) and outcome measures developed and informed by their priorities, experience, and preferences? • How were patients/public involved in the design of this study? • How were they involved in the recruitment to and conduct of the study? • Were they asked to assess the burden of the intervention and time required to participate in the research? • How were (or will) patients and the public be involved in choosing the methods and agreeing plans for dissemination of the study results to participants and wider relevant communities? You may find this link helpful.

In addition to considering the points above we advise authors to look at guidance for best reporting of patient and public involvement as set out in the GRIPP2 reporting checklist.  

If information detailing whether there was patient and public involvement, or not, is missing in the submitted manuscript we will request authors to provide it.

Where they have been involved we consider it good practice for authors to name and thank them in the contributorship statement after seeking their permission to do so; and to clearly identify them as patient/public contributors. When they have contributed substantially and meet authorship criteria they should be invited to coauthor the manuscript.

Links to selected examples of Patient and Public Involvement statements in published BMJ research papers showing patient and carer involvement at various stages of the research process.

Comparison of the two most commonly used treatments for pyoderma gangrenosum: results of the STOP GAP randomised controlled trial

Evidence based community mobilization for dengue prevention in Nicaragua and Mexico

Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) as treatment for depression in primary care (REEACT trial): large scale pragmatic randomised controlled trial .

Real world effectiveness of warfarin among ischemic stroke patients with atrial fibrillation: observational analysis from Patient-Centered Research into Outcomes Stroke Patients Prefer and Effectiveness Research (PROSPER) study.

Example PPI statements to adapt for use in a paper

Examples to guide the wording for PPI statements

Data sharing

We require a data sharing statement for all research papers. For papers that do not report a trial, we do not require that the authors agree to share the data, just that they say whether they will.

For reports of clinical trials, we ask that the authors commit to making the relevant anonymised patient level data available on reasonable request (see editorial ). This policy applies to any research article that reports the main endpoints of a randomised controlled trial of one or more drugs or medical devices in current use, whether or not the trial was funded by industry.

"Relevant data" encompasses all anonymised data on individual patients on which the analysis, results, and conclusions reported in the paper are based. As for "reasonable request," The BMJ is not in a position to adjudicate, but we will expect requesters to submit a protocol for their re-analysis to the authors and to commit to making their results public. We will encourage those requesting data to send a rapid response to thebmj.com, describing what they are looking for. If the request is refused we will ask the authors of the paper to explain why.

In addition, we will follow the new ICMJE data sharing policy that goes into place on July 1, 2018 (see editorial ): manuscripts submitted to ICMJE journals that report the results of clinical trials must contain a data sharing statement that indicates whether individual de-identified participant data (including data dictionaries) will be shared; what data in particular will be shared; whether additional, related documents will be available (study protocol, statistical analysis plan, etc); when the data will become available and for how long; by what access criteria data will be shared (including with whom, for what types of analyses, and by what mechanism). Clinical trials that begin enrolling participants on or after January 1, 2019 must also include a data sharing plan in the trial’s registration. If the data sharing plan changes after registration this should be reflected in the statement submitted and published with the manuscript, and updated in the registry record.

We encourage authors of all research articles in The BMJ to link their articles to the raw data from their studies. For clinical trials, we require data sharing on request as a minimum and- if authors of such trials are willing to go further and share the data openly, so much the better. The BMJ has partnered with the Dryad digital repository datadryad.org to make open deposition easy and to allow direct linkage by doi from the dataset to The BMJ 's article and back (for The BMJ 's articles' datasets see here ).

Data requesters should do the following: • Submit a rapid response to the paper and email the corresponding author for the paper to request the relevant data. • Be prepared to provide the authors of the paper a detailed protocol for your proposed study, and to supply information about the funding and resources you have to carry out the study. • If appropriate, invite the original author[s] to participate in the re-analysis. • If a month elapses without a response from the authors, please email the head of research for The BMJ (presently [email protected] ) and cc [email protected] . • The BMJ will assess the request and if appropriate we will encourage the authors or their institution to share the data, although we are not in a position to compel data release or broker agreements. Our role is limited to making the request process public, and all correspondence related to the request may be made public through rapid responses to the paper.

Mandatory disaggregation of research data by sex and gender

The BMJ requires that research data be disaggregated by sex and gender. If that is not possible, please include a detailed explanation of the reasons for this, and mention it as a limitation in the discussion section.

Statements that must be included in Research submissions (Ethics approval, funding, and transparency)

Ethics approval

All research studies published in The BMJ should be morally acceptable, and must follow the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki . To ensure this, we aim to appraise the ethical aspects of any submitted work that involves human participants, whatever descriptive label is given to that work including research, audit, and sometimes debate. This policy also applies on the very rare occasions that we publish work done with animal participants. The manuscript must include a statement that the study obtained ethics approval (or a statement that it was not required), including the name of the ethics committee(s) or institutional review board(s), the number/ID of the approval(s), and a statement that participants gave informed consent before taking part.

Transparency statement

Please include in your manuscript a transparency declaration : a statement that the lead author (the manuscript's guarantor) affirms that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as originally planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained.

The BMJ is committed to making the editorial process transparent and ethical. The BMJ ’s transparency policies are accessible from this link .

Role of the funding source

Please include in the manuscript a statement giving the details of all sources of funding for the study. As appropriate, the statement must include a description of the role of the study sponsor(s) or funder(s), if any, in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication. In addition, the statement must confirm the independence of researchers from funders and that all authors, external and internal, had full access to all of the data (including statistical reports and tables) in the study and can take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis is also required.

If you are submitting an original article reporting an industry sponsored clinical trial, postmarketing study, or other observational study please follow the guidelines on good publication practice (GPP2) and on properly reporting the role of professional medical writers. Another resource, the Authors' Submission Toolkit: A practical guide to getting your research published summarises general tips and best practices to increase awareness of journals' editorial requirements, how to choose the right journal, submission processes, publication ethics, peer review, and effective communication with editors - much of which has traditionally been seen as mysterious to authors.

The BMJ will not consider for publication any study that is partly or wholly funded by the tobacco industry, as explained in this editorial .

Patient and Public Involvement statement

Within the Methods section of your paper, please state if and how patients and the public were involved in the research you are describing. For more information, please see the specific guidance on mandatory reporting of patient and public involvement above. If patients and the public were not involved this information should be formally documented in the Patient and Public Involvement statement.

Dissemination to participants and related patient and public communities

For accepted papers we will ask you to confirm when and how the results of your study were (or will be) sent to research participants and whether they are also being sent to relevant patient and public communities, as applicable. If you have not disseminated and have no plans to do so, please state why.

Summary boxes

Please produce a box offering a thumbnail sketch of what your article adds to the literature. The box should be divided into two short sections, each with 1-3 short sentences.

Section 1: What is already known on this topic

In two or three single sentence bullet points, please summarise the state of scientific knowledge on this topicbefore you did your study, and why this study needed to be done. Be clear and specific, not vague.

Section 2: What this study adds

In one or two single sentence bullet points, give a simple answer to the question “What do we now know as a result of this study that we did not know before?” Be brief, succinct, specific, and accurate. For example: "Our study suggests that tea drinking has no overall benefit in depression." You might use the last sentence to summarise any implications for practice, research, policy, or public health. For example, your study might have asked and answered a new question (one whose relevance has only recently become clear); contradicted a belief, dogma, or previous evidence provided a new perspective on something that is already known in general; or provided evidence of higher methodological quality for a message that is already known. DO not make statements that are not directly supported by your data.

Additional information that must be included with reports of Clinical Trials

Trial registration

In accordance with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals , The BMJ will not consider reports of clinical trials unless they were registered prospectively before recruitment of any participants. This policy on prospective registration applies to trials that started after 1 July 2005; for older trials retrospective registration will be acceptable, but only if completed before submission of the manuscript to the journal. The trial registration number and name of register should be included as the last line of the structured abstract. The BMJ accepts registration in any registry that is a primary register of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) or in ClinicalTrials.gov , which is a data provider to the WHO ICTRP.

In your submission, please include details about registration: registry, date registered, affirmation that registration was prospective before enrolling the first patient (if applicable) and registry number. The BMJ relies on information contained in trial registries. If authors believe that information in the registry is incorrect they should make their case to registry officials.

Eligible trials have been defined by ICMJE since 1 July 2008 as trials "where human participants are prospectively assigned to one or more health-related interventions (including health services and behavioural interventions) to evaluate the effects on health outcomes," and before that were defined more narrowly as trials "where human participants are prospectively assigned to investigate the cause and effect relationship between a medical intervention and health outcome." The ICMJE further states that, "Some trials assign healthcare providers, rather than patients, to intervention and comparison/control groups. If the purpose of the trial is to examine the effect of the provider intervention on the health outcomes of the providers' patients, then investigators should register the trial. If the purpose is to examine the effect only on the providers (for example, provider knowledge or attitudes), then registration is not necessary." We will take these definitions into account when evaluating if trials were adequately registered.

The BMJ does not consider posting of protocols and results in clinical trial registries to be prior publication. We also will consider research articles that have been posted on preprint servers, provided this is clearly disclosed on submission of the paper.

The BMJ encourages but does not require registration of protocols and posting of results in publicly accessible registries for studies that are not clinical trials if they involve human participants, particularly observational studies . If the study was registered, please provide the registration details, explaining whether the study was registered before data acquisition or analysis began.

The BMJ expects authors of clinical trials to report their findings in accordance with the outcomes listed in the trial registry. Outcomes that were not pre-specified in the registration should be identified as such in the text of the paper and in any tables. All registered outcomes should be described in the BMJ paper. If results for any outcomes will be or have been reported in another publication this should be made clear to readers. The timing and reasons for any changes in registered outcomes should also be disclosed.

The BMJ requires authors of clinical trials to upload a protocol for their study. This protocol will be published alongside other materials if the article is accepted. Any discrepancies between the protocol-specified outcomes and those listed in the trial registry or reported in the paper should be explained in the paper. In cases where pre-specified outcomes differ between the trial registration and the protocol, our policy is to consider the outcomes listed in the registry as pre-specified. Outcomes listed in the protocol but not the trial registry can be reported in the paper, but should be identified as post-hoc outcomes. Protocols vary in completeness and content. There are often multiple versions of a protocol and the timing of decisions about outcomes in relation to the onset of a trial cannot easily be determined. This is in contrast to trial registries, where date stamps are reliable and can be easily verified by readers.Trial registry entries should be updated if new outcomes are added or existing ones deleted, promoted, or demoted.

The BMJ requires authors of clinical trials to upload a statistical analysis plan (SAP) for their study. The SAP will be published alongside other materials if the article is accepted. A SAP provides more detailed information about statistical analysis than a protocol, including detailed descriptions of procedures used to execute the analyses. Please follow the guidance on producing a SAP contained in the table of this document: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2666509

Open access

Research papers in The BMJ are published with open access. Moreover, The BMJ immediately fulfils the requirements of the US National Institutes of Health, the UK Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, and other funding bodies by making the full text of publicly funded research freely available to all on bmj.com and sending it directly to PubMed Central, the National Library of Medicine's full text archive. The BMJ occasionally publishes as open access other types of (non-research) articles arising from work funded by a funder who mandates open access publication.

Open access articles may be reused according to the relevant Creative Commons licence. The BMJ 's default licence for open access publication of research is the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial licence (CC BY-NC 4.0) . But where the funder requires it the author can select the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence during the submission process (funders who mandate CC BY include the Wellcome Trust, RCUK, and MRC).

To support this, we ask authors to pay an open access article processing charge - you can find our author charges for open access here . We can offer discounts and waivers for authors who cannot pay. Consideration of the paper is not related to whether authors can or cannot pay the fee. We will ask for the fee only once we have accepted a paper, and we will send an invoice only once authors tell us (via [email protected] ) they can claim the fee. Seeking and processing fees will not delay editing or publication. Please do not contact editors about open access fees: neither editors nor reviewers will know whether a fee is payable, and administrative staff will handle payments and all associated correspondence. For non-research articles published with open access we will ask authors to pay the open access fee. We do not offer refunds for Open Access once articles have been published. For further information, contact [email protected] .

A number of institutions have open access institutional memberships with BMJ (the publishing group), which either cover the whole cost of open access publishing for authors at participating institutions or allow authors to receive a discount on the article processing charge. For a list of member institutions and their policies on how to receive a discount or to publish free of charge, please visit http://journals.bmj.com/site/authors/openaccess.xhtml

For articles not published with open access, The BMJ 's publication licence allows each author to post their article's URL (provided above) on either their own or their employer's website, thereby giving users free access to the full text of the article on bmj.com. Authors will need to use the toll free link to ensure visitors have free access to the article. Alternatively, authors can post the full text of their published article on their own website or their employer's website.

For additional information, please see the section of instructions to authors on copyright, open access, and permission to reuse .

Living systematic reviews

The BMJ will pilot a small number of living systematic reviews

Duration : We will typically host a living systematic review which is live for up to 2 years after initial publication. The triggers for updates, and their frequency, will be decided with authors on a case by case basis. Communication : The title will reflect the living nature of the review and the most recent update will become the default publication on bmj.com. Reviews will have a single digital object identifier (DOI) to keep the information in one place. However, previous versions will remain available as data supplements. An updates table will be included in the review to make tracking the history of the review easier and to signal planned changes. Updates will be flagged on bmj.com, including in rapid responses. They will also be communicated to third parties including PubMed and PubMedCentral. Updates : Updates should be submitted as a “track changes” version of the final MIcrosoft Word version of the previous iteration of the review. A clean version should also be submitted via the ScholarOne manuscript system. Subsequent internal or external peer review reports will be added to the pre-publication history tab on bmj.com with each version of the paper. The approach to any authorship changes should be negotiated before the first version of the paper is published. Resources : The usual BMJ article open access processing fee will be charged for the initial version of the review and an additional fee will be added to cover the cost of up to three updates per year (£2000 per update). After the first year the price may be revised based on the scope of the revisions and the work done on each one.

Preliminary reporting guidance for living reviews

COVER LETTER: This should explain and defend the need for the review to be “living.” Briefly describe other extant reviews, in particular any other living systematic reviews that have recently been published. The cover letter should acknowledge the authors’ acceptance of the following special conditions that apply to living reviews: 1) the need to provide current conflict of interest declarations or updates for all authors at each revision; 2) the single DOI for the paper and updates; agreement that open access fees cannot be waived for living reviews and that additional fees apply to cover the extra work of producing and maintaining living reviews.

TITLE: The phrase “living systematic review” should appear in the title. If additional terms apply, those may be included as appropriate (e.g. “network meta-analysis,” “meta-analysis,” “critical appraisal,” etc.).

ABSTRACT: The abstract should include: 1) A statement of the research question or objective, including a statement that one objective is to provide regular updates and keep the review live. 2) The rationale for a living systematic review should be described, e.g. rapidly evolving evidence base, anticipated impact on policy or practice, etc. 3) A “Readers’ note” at the end of the abstract that provides information about the version of the paper, the date it went live, and gives notice of planned updates. For example: “Readers’ note: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated periodically over the next 2 years to reflect emerging evidence. This version is update XXX of the original article published XXXXXX (give BMJ DOI), and previous updates can be found as data supplements (give link). When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.”

MAIN PAPER: Please address the following matters in the appropriate section of the paper: Introduction: -- Include the information required in the abstract (see above paragraph) at the end of the introduction section. -- In updates, consider including a short paragraph that describes how the living review has evolved. For example, what are the key developments since the previous version of the review, and what developments might be expected? Methods -- Mention and include a reference to any published or publicly available protocol for this review. If not registered, consider registering the review. -- Describe the methods that will be used to keep the review living, including the processes that will be used to search for new evidence, anticipated triggers for updates, and the circumstances under which the review might end before the 2 year time limit for BMJ Living Reviews. -- In updated versions of the review, make clear when and why any methods have evolved over time. If these descriptions are lengthy or complex, consider doing this in a table that can be included in an appendix or supplemental file. Such a table will ideally describe important changes to the review protocol, statistical analyses, or other aspects of the review, along with the dates of these changes. -- A table at the end of the discussion section might be used to highlight new evidence that was not included in the review. Results -- Clearly state the updated dates of the search. Discussion -- Consider additional subheadings to separate, e.g. What remain the important findings so far? Versus what are the main new findings to highlight? -- Consider additional table updates to this article. This will make clear historical and anticipated change. Columns trigger, date and action. Declaration of competing interests -- All authors must complete the ICMJE Competing Interests form with the initial submission. At each revision, we will ask the corresponding author to state whether there have been any changes to competing interests among any of the existing authors. If there are changes or if new authors have been added, the corresponding author is responsible for ensuring the this information is up to date. Otherwise there will be no change to the declaration of interests. Supplementary files -- Previous versions of the paper

Please contact Dr. Elizabeth Loder ( [email protected] ) with any questions.

Supplemental material, video

You may submit the following materials as supplemental files if you think they will help the authors and reviewers make a decision or readers better understand your study:

Original raw data if you think they will help our reviewers (and maybe readers), or if we specifically request them. Please note our policy on data sharing, explained above.

Video and audio files that will add educational value to your article, for example by explaining the intervention in a trial.

A video abstract that summarizes your findings and that will be posted on bmj.com with your paper. You can find additional information about video abstracts here and here .

Public and patient involvement materials used in your research.

Copies of any non-standard questionnaires and assessment schedules used in the research.

Copies of patient information sheets used to obtain informed consent for the study or to comprise or deliver the intervention in a clinical trial.

Copies of closely related articles you have published (this is particularly important when details of the study methods are published elsewhere).

Copies of any previous reviewers' reports on this article . We appreciate that authors may have tried other journals before sending their work to The BMJ , and find it helpful if you let us know how you have responded to previous reviewers' comments.

Research Methods and Reporting (RMR)

We are willing to consider papers that present new or updated research reporting guidelines, but only if the guideline pertains to a study type that we publish in The BMJ. The checklist itself must be included as part of the paper. We prefer to be the only journal publishing the guideline, but under some circumstances we will consider co-publication with up to two other journals. For an example of how to format a reporting guideline to appear in our research methods and reporting section, see http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f1049.full.pdf+html .

Preparing a RMR article

Word count We do not set fixed word count limits for RMR articles. Nonetheless, we ask you to make your article concise and make every word count. For some submissions this might be published in full on bmj.com with a shorter version in the print BMJ 

Overall structure Research Methods and Reporting should have the following elements:

Title and standfirst A short title is followed by an 100-150 word italicised single sentence (the standfirst) which encapsulates the article’s central message.

Introduction Articles should begin with a brief paragraph that captures readers’ attention and explains the aim of the piece.

Text The body of the text should be broken up under subheadings that provide a logical narrative structure. Avoid acronyms and abbreviations unless they are universally recognised e.g. DNA. The evidence on which key statements are based should be explicit and referenced, and the strength of the evidence (published trials, systematic reviews, observational studies, expert opinion etc.) addressed.

Boxes, tables and figures Include tables, boxes, or illustrations (clinical photographs, imaging, line drawings, and figures) to enhance the text and add to or substantiate key points made in the body of the article. Figures may be in color. Worked out examples that use specific methods under discussion can be included as additional boxes. If appropriate, include a box of linked information such as website urls for those who want to pursue the subject in more depth.

Web extras We may be able to publish on bmj.com some additional boxes, figures, and references (in a separate reference list numbered w1, w2,w3, etc. and marked as such in the main text of the article). Also may include suggestions for linked podcasts or video clips, as appropriate.

Contributors and sources We ask for a 100-150 word supplementary paragraph (excluded from word count) to explain the article’s provenance. It should include the relevant experience and expertise of each author, his or her contribution to the paper, and the sources of information used to prepare it. One author must be nominated as the guarantor of the article. Include a statement of sources and selection criteria.

Key messages box Include up to four sentences, in the form of bullet points, highlighting the article's main points.

References Must be in Vancouver style and should be kept to a minimum; ideally no more than 20.

“Analysis” is a distinct article type at The BMJ , and differs from other sections such as Research, Education, Editorials, and Personal Views. A great Analysis article makes an argument and supports it with reference to a robust (not cherry picked) evidence base. It has academic heft yet is a journalistic read. 'Academic heft' means the argument is evidence-based and supported by data. 'Journalistic read' means the article is really engaging (not dry nor dull; written in clear language and avoiding technical jargon; and pitched to our international audience of doctors of all specialties, academics, and policy makers). Keep in mind that Analysis articles are “long reads” at around 1800-2000 words, so they need to be absolutely great reading to keep readers’ attention, particularly readers that may not be familiar with the topic.

We receive many manuscripts that are not a good fit for the Analysis section. We generally do not consider:

• Case studies (e.g. where the article mostly concerns the author’s writing about their own work) • Manuscripts containing primary research data (such papers should be submitted as Research) • Narrative review articles (as a general practice, The BMJ does not accept unsolicited submissions of review articles) • Articles presenting a new hypothesis

If you are unsure if your work is suitable for The BMJ 's Analysis section we are willing to consider succinct pre-submission inquiries, please complete the form in this link and await a response from one of the analysis editors.

Preparing an Analysis article

We recommend looking at this Analysis article template and using it as a basis for your work before considering submission.

Word count and style The BMJ has an international readership that includes policy makers, health professionals, and doctors of all disciplines. Authors are advised to keep this readership in mind and to write their article for the non-expert. It’s important to avoid jargon. Specialised terminology and references to organisations or practices that are specific to one country need to be explained. Clear writing and an attractive presentation are essential. Analysis papers should be 1,800-2,000 words long.

Overall structure The manuscript should have the following elements:

Title and standfirst A short title is followed by an italicised single sentence (the standfirst) which encapsulates the article’s central message.

Text The body of the text should be broken up under sub-headings that provide a logical narrative structure. Avoid acronyms and abbreviations unless they are universally recognised e.g. DNA. The evidence on which key statements are based should be explicit and referenced, and the strength of the evidence (published trials, systematic reviews, observational studies, expert opinion, etc.) made clear. Articles should present a balanced, even-handed look at the evidence rather than selectively citing evidence that supports a particular view.

Boxes, tables and figures These should extend and substantiate points made in the body of the paper. Words in boxes and tables are excluded from the word count of the body of the text, but the additional material should be concise.

Key messages box This should be at the end of the article and include 2 to 4 points summing up the main conclusions. When submitting your article at submit.bmj.com, please enter your key messages when prompted to enter the abstract.

Contributors and sources We ask for a 100-150 word supplementary paragraph (excluded from word count) to explain the article’s provenance. It should include the relevant experience and expertise of each author, his or her contribution to the paper, and the sources of information used to prepare it. One author must be nominated as the guarantor of the article.You are welcome to invite co-authors to work with you on the article. We suggest including 2-3 co-authors with different locations and perspectives to help ensure articles are international in scope and accessible to our broad readership online and in print.

Report of patient involvement As The BMJ is seeking to advance partnership with patients, we also ask authors to seek their input into articles wherever relevant, and document their involvement as patient contributors or coauthors.

Conflicts of Interest All authors should read our competing interests policy and include the appropriate declaration in their manuscript. Where a competing interest exists that might disqualify an author from contributing, it is wise to discuss it with a BMJ editor before writing the article.

Peer review The BMJ has fully open peer review for analysis articles. This means that every accepted analysis article submitted from February 2016 onwards will have its prepublication history posted alongside it on thebmj.com. This prepublication history comprises all previous versions of the manuscript, the report from the manuscript committee meeting, the reviewers’ signed comments, and the authors’ responses to all the comments from reviewers and editors. Authors are welcome to suggest names of suitable reviewers, including patient reviewers.

What happens after submission

What happens after publication.

In most cases we will publish the prepublication history alongside an accepted analysis article. This prepublication history comprises all previous versions of the manuscript, the report from the manuscript committee meeting, the reviewers’ comments, and the authors’ responses to all the comments from reviewers and editors. In rare instances we may determine after careful consideration that we should not make certain portions of the prepublication record publicly available. For example, in cases of stigmatised illnesses we seek to protect the confidentiality of reviewers who have these illnesses. In other instances there may be legal or regulatory considerations that make it inadvisable or impermissible to make available certain parts of the prepublication record. In all instances in which we have determined that elements of the prepublication record should not be made publicly available, we expect that authors will respect these decisions and also will not share this information.

Education (inc. Minerva Pictures and Endgames)

The BMJ publishes different types of educational articles to engage and challenge a range of postgraduate doctors and clinical researchers internationally. We strive to publish articles that are original in their content and/or presentation, and cannot be found elsewhere or in textbooks. We prioritise topics and situations that are common or have serious consequences, have international appeal, and that interest a variety of doctors, including GPs and specialists.

We encourage authors to write in teams, including those from other specialties, professions, and countries. We ask that one author is routed in the clinical environment of the intended reader. We encourage authors to write in plain English, to be clear about where there is uncertainty, and to include numbers and phrases where possible that will help doctors in conversation with their patients.

Our educational articles are shaped by two initiatives:

• We believe that financial interests can distort education articles and we minimise or exclude authors who we judge have such a conflict.

• We believe that patient involvement strengthens content. We encourage authors to seek input from patients either to inform the scope, develop the content, contribute to, or co-author articles. For help with this, please read our guidance on what we mean by patient involvement and co-production .

Submission process and presubmission enquiries

We receive more articles and suggestions than we can publish. We require all authors to contact us before submitting a manuscript to us. Send us your proposal using our Education Article Proposal Form , together with your completed Declaration of Financial Interests .

The proposal form will guide you through the following questions:

• What is your idea? • Can you sum up the aim of your article in a sentence? • Why is the topic important to The BMJ 's readers? • What is the prevalence of the symptom/condition/situation you wish to write about? • Why cover it now? Has something new happened? • What has The BMJ 's Education section covered on this topic in the last five years? What will your contribution add? • Can you provide the key evidence/references you might use? • Why are your writing team well placed to cover the topic? • Have you thought about what a patient would say about your idea?

Policies for Education articles

Authorship Education articles can have can have up to four authors. One author should be from the relevant specialty or setting, unless agreed otherwise. For example, if the article discusses presentation to the emergency department one author should be an emergency care doctor. All authors should meet authorship criteria . We welcome authors or contributions from allied health professions and patient authors, and actively encourage authors from a primary care background.

Competing interests The BMJ will not consider authors with financial interests when writing Education articles. It is important that we understand the financial interests of every author, and can judge to what extent we believe that they may be relevant to the article that you propose. We do not publish content from authors who we judge have relevant financial ties to the industry (excluding State of the Art reviews, Therapeutics articles, and Summaries of NICE Guidelines). The relevance of declared interests are judged by the BMJ team. This applies to every author. Any additional authors and their financial interests must be discussed and agreed with the commissioning editor before the article is submitted.

Patient involvement As part of our drive to co-produce our content with patients we ask that you seek patient input into articles at the planning stage. We believe that their experience and perspectives will make articles more useful for doctors in their quest to help improve patients well being and outcomes.

We ask all authors to what extent patients have been involved in their article and how their involvement changed the article. We ask that all writing encourages honesty and partnership with patients. Where uncertainty exists, share it. Where data exists present the numbers in a way that can be shared with the patient (use absolute numbers, natural frequencies, and graphics where you can). Use language that empowers patients to make the right choices for them in their situation (write that a doctor should/could offer a test, rather than should do a test).

When patients are involved in the manuscript, we ask for their consent. We have two types of consent forms for BMJ education articles:

• A patient consent form is required if any anonymised patient information is included in the review. Consent is needed for images even if the patients are not identifiable for example, in X-rays and histology slides, and for patients’ stories/vignettes even if details are anonymised.

• A patient contributor form is required for any patients who are named within the review, for example, patient co-authors, patient contributors or named authors of patient stories.

Preparing your manuscript

We want our readers to have the ability to share decisions with their patients and make clear for them the degree of certainty ( or lack of it) about a potential course of action. We therefore ask that, in addition to the format and instructions detailed below for the specific Education article that you are writing, you follow these recommendations:

• Consider including in your manuscript a box explaining your strategy to search for evidence. It should include a search date, the sources searched, and brief inclusion criteria. • Clearly distinguish suggestions made based on your experience, standard practice, guidelines, and evidence. • Provide specifics about the evidence you discuss. For example, for key statements, please say: "A large, well conducted, randomised controlled trial showed INSERT number [CI] and or p value". "The findings of a small case series suggest...". “A subgroup analysis found…”. etc. • Use absolute numbers or explain why you have not used them. • Consider how these numbers can be communicated by the clinician read to their patient in a clear way. • Where evidence is lacking or of poor quality make this clear. • Write about known and unknown benefits and harms.

"What you need to know" box . No more than three bullet points for practice articles and five for clinical updates encapsulating the specific take home messages from this article.

"How patients were involved in the creation of this article" box. Please include: Which patients were asked (e.g. patient advocates, networked patient communities and organisations, patients in your clinic etc). What they said (e.g. include more practical advice on how to inject insulin.) How you changed your article as a result (e.g. we included a box to address this.)

"Education into practice" box . Include two to three bullet points about how a reader might at an individual or organisational level improve their practice (e.g. do you offer lifestyle advice to all patients with newly diagnosed hypertension?)

At least one other box or table and at least one figure or image that complement the text of the article.

Article types

We accept pitches for the following article types. Once our editors have made a decision to encourage a pitch, we will provde authors will a full, detailed set of instructions on how best to format your content.

Additional requirements for all other article types

Back to top

Submitting your article

Follow this link to find out more about The BMJ submission system, how to submit your article, and how to navigate and manage your submitted papers.

• Publishing model
• Editorial staff
• Advisory panels
• Explore The BMJ
• BMJ Student
• How green is The BMJ?
• Sources of revenue
• House style
• Image usage
• Article submission
• Forms, policies, and ethics
• Guidance for new authors
• BMJ Christmas issue
• Resources for advertisers and sponsors
• Resources for BMA members
• Resources for media
• Resources for subscribers
• Resources for readers
• Resources for reviewers
• About The BMJ app
• Poll archive
• International jobs

This week's poll

Read related article

See previous polls

Brief Report

Brief reports are suitable for the presentation of research that extends previously published research, including the reporting of additional data and confirmatory results in other settings, as well as small-scale studies. Authors must clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building, both published and unpublished. Journal of Big Data  strongly encourages that all datasets on which the conclusions of the paper rely should be available to readers. We encourage authors to ensure that their datasets are either deposited in publicly available repositories (where available and appropriate) or presented in the main manuscript or additional supporting files whenever possible. Please see Springer Nature’s  information on recommended repositories.

Authors who need help depositing and curating data may wish to consider uploading their data to  Springer Nature’s Research Data Support  or contacting our  Research Data Support Helpdesk . Springer Nature’s Research Data Support provides data deposition and curation to help authors follow good practice in sharing and archiving of research data, and can be accessed via an online form. The services provide secure and private submission of data files, which are curated and managed by the Springer Nature Research Data team for public release, in agreement with the submitting author. These services are provided in partnership with figshare. Checks are carried out as part of a submission screening process to ensure that researchers who should use a specific community-endorsed repository are advised of the best option for sharing and archiving their data. Use of Research Data Support is optional and does not imply or guarantee that a manuscript will be accepted.

The Abstract of the manuscript should not exceed 350 words and must be structured into separate sections:

• Background, the context and purpose of the study;
• Findings, the main results;
• Conclusions, brief summary and potential implications.

Please minimize the use of abbreviations and do not cite references in the abstract.

Preparing your manuscript

The title page should:

• present a title that includes, if appropriate, the research design or for non-research studies: a description of what the article reports
• if a collaboration group should be listed as an author, please list the group name as an author  and include the names of the individual members of the group in the “Acknowledgements” section in accordance with the instructions below
• Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT , do not currently satisfy our authorship criteria . Notably an attribution of authorship carries with it accountability for the work, which cannot be effectively applied to LLMs. Use of an LLM should be properly documented in the Methods section (and if a Methods section is not available, in a suitable alternative part) of the manuscript
• indicate the corresponding author

The abstract should briefly summarize the aim, findings or purpose of the article. Please minimize the use of abbreviations and do not cite references in the abstract.

Three to ten keywords representing the main content of the article.

This should contain the body of the article, and may also be broken into subsections with short, informative headings.

List of abbreviations

If abbreviations are used in the text they should be defined in the text at first use, and a list of abbreviations should be provided.

Declarations

All manuscripts must contain the following sections under the heading 'Declarations':

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Consent for publication, availability of data and materials, competing interests, authors' contributions, acknowledgements.

• Authors' information (optional)

Please see below for details on the information to be included in these sections.

If any of the sections are not relevant to your manuscript, please include the heading and write 'Not applicable' for that section.

Manuscripts reporting studies involving human participants, human data or human tissue must:

• include a statement on ethics approval and consent (even where the need for approval was waived)
• include the name of the ethics committee that approved the study and the committee’s reference number if appropriate

Studies involving animals must include a statement on ethics approval and for experimental studies involving client-owned animals, authors must also include a statement on informed consent from the client or owner.

See our  editorial policies  for more information.

If your manuscript does not report on or involve the use of any animal or human data or tissue, please state “Not applicable” in this section.

If your manuscript contains any individual person’s data in any form (including individual details, images or videos), consent to publish must be obtained from that person, or in the case of children, their parent or legal guardian. All presentations of case reports must have consent to publish.

You can use your institutional consent form if you prefer. You should not send the form to us on submission, but we may request to see a copy at any stage (including after publication).

See our  editorial policies  for more information on consent for publication.

If your manuscript does not contain data from any individual person, please state “Not applicable” in this section.

All manuscripts must include an ‘Availability of data and materials’ statement. Data availability statements should include information on where data supporting the results reported in the article can be found including, where applicable, hyperlinks to publicly archived datasets analysed or generated during the study. By data we mean the minimal dataset that would be necessary to interpret, replicate and build upon the findings reported in the article. We recognise it is not always possible to share research data publicly, for instance when individual privacy could be compromised, and in such instances data availability should still be stated in the manuscript along with any conditions for access.

Data availability statements can take one of the following forms (or a combination of more than one if required for multiple datasets):

• The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available in the [NAME] repository, [PERSISTENT WEB LINK TO DATASETS]
• The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
• All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].
• The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due [REASON WHY DATA ARE NOT PUBLIC] but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
• Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
• The data that support the findings of this study are available from [third party name] but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of [third party name].
• Not applicable. If your manuscript does not contain any data, please state 'Not applicable' in this section.

More examples of template data availability statements, which include examples of openly available and restricted access datasets, are available  here .

SpringerOpen  also requires that authors cite any publicly available data on which the conclusions of the paper rely in the manuscript. Data citations should include a persistent identifier (such as a DOI) and should ideally be included in the reference list. Citations of datasets, when they appear in the reference list, should include the minimum information recommended by DataCite and follow journal style. Dataset identifiers including DOIs should be expressed as full URLs. For example:

Hao Z, AghaKouchak A, Nakhjiri N, Farahmand A. Global integrated drought monitoring and prediction system (GIDMaPS) data sets. figshare. 2014.  http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.853801

With the corresponding text in the Availability of data and materials statement:

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available in the [NAME] repository, [PERSISTENT WEB LINK TO DATASETS]. [Reference number]

If you wish to co-submit a data note describing your data to be published in BMC Research Notes , you can do so by visiting our submission portal . Data notes support open data and help authors to comply with funder policies on data sharing. Co-published data notes will be linked to the research article the data support ( example ).

All financial and non-financial competing interests must be declared in this section.

See our  editorial policies  for a full explanation of competing interests. If you are unsure whether you or any of your co-authors have a competing interest please contact the editorial office.

Please use the authors’ initials to refer to each authors' competing interests in this section.

If you do not have any competing interests, please state "The authors declare that they have no competing interests" in this section.

All sources of funding for the research reported should be declared. If the funder has a specific role in the conceptualization, design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript, this should be declared.

The individual contributions of authors to the manuscript should be specified in this section. Guidance and criteria for authorship can be found in our  editorial policies .

Please use initials to refer to each author's contribution in this section, for example: "FC analyzed and interpreted the patient data regarding the hematological disease and the transplant. RH performed the histological examination of the kidney, and was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript."

Please acknowledge anyone who contributed towards the article who does not meet the criteria for authorship including anyone who provided professional writing services or materials.

Authors should obtain permission to acknowledge from all those mentioned in the Acknowledgements section.

See our  editorial policies  for a full explanation of acknowledgements and authorship criteria.

If you do not have anyone to acknowledge, please write "Not applicable" in this section.

Group authorship (for manuscripts involving a collaboration group): if you would like the names of the individual members of a collaboration Group to be searchable through their individual PubMed records, please ensure that the title of the collaboration Group is included on the title page and in the submission system and also include collaborating author names as the last paragraph of the “Acknowledgements” section. Please add authors in the format First Name, Middle initial(s) (optional), Last Name. You can add institution or country information for each author if you wish, but this should be consistent across all authors.

Please note that individual names may not be present in the PubMed record at the time a published article is initially included in PubMed as it takes PubMed additional time to code this information.

Authors' information

This section is optional.

You may choose to use this section to include any relevant information about the author(s) that may aid the reader's interpretation of the article, and understand the standpoint of the author(s). This may include details about the authors' qualifications, current positions they hold at institutions or societies, or any other relevant background information. Please refer to authors using their initials. Note this section should not be used to describe any competing interests.

Footnotes should be designated within the text using a superscript number. It is not allowed to use footnotes for references/citations.

Examples of the Vancouver reference style are shown below. 

See our editorial policies for author guidance on good citation practice.

Web links and URLs: All web links and URLs, including links to the authors' own websites, should be given a reference number and included in the reference list rather than within the text of the manuscript. They should be provided in full, including both the title of the site and the URL, as well as the date the site was accessed, in the following format: The Mouse Tumor Biology Database. http://tumor.informatics.jax.org/mtbwi/index.do . Accessed 20 May 2013. If an author or group of authors can clearly be associated with a web link, such as for weblogs, then they should be included in the reference.

Example reference style:

Article within a journal

Smith JJ. The world of science. Am J Sci. 1999;36:234-5.

Article within a journal (no page numbers)

Rohrmann S, Overvad K, Bueno-de-Mesquita HB, Jakobsen MU, Egeberg R, Tjønneland A, et al. Meat consumption and mortality - results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. BMC Medicine. 2013;11:63.

Article within a journal by DOI

Slifka MK, Whitton JL. Clinical implications of dysregulated cytokine production. Dig J Mol Med. 2000; doi:10.1007/s801090000086.

Article within a journal supplement

Frumin AM, Nussbaum J, Esposito M. Functional asplenia: demonstration of splenic activity by bone marrow scan. Blood 1979;59 Suppl 1:26-32.

Book chapter, or an article within a book

Wyllie AH, Kerr JFR, Currie AR. Cell death: the significance of apoptosis. In: Bourne GH, Danielli JF, Jeon KW, editors. International review of cytology. London: Academic; 1980. p. 251-306.

OnlineFirst chapter in a series (without a volume designation but with a DOI)

Saito Y, Hyuga H. Rate equation approaches to amplification of enantiomeric excess and chiral symmetry breaking. Top Curr Chem. 2007. doi:10.1007/128_2006_108.

Complete book, authored

Blenkinsopp A, Paxton P. Symptoms in the pharmacy: a guide to the management of common illness. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 1998.

Online document

Doe J. Title of subordinate document. In: The dictionary of substances and their effects. Royal Society of Chemistry. 1999. http://www.rsc.org/dose/title of subordinate document. Accessed 15 Jan 1999.

Online database

Healthwise Knowledgebase. US Pharmacopeia, Rockville. 1998. http://www.healthwise.org. Accessed 21 Sept 1998.

Supplementary material/private homepage

Doe J. Title of supplementary material. 2000. http://www.privatehomepage.com. Accessed 22 Feb 2000.

University site

Doe, J: Title of preprint. http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/mydata.html (1999). Accessed 25 Dec 1999.

Doe, J: Trivial HTTP, RFC2169. ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2169.txt (1999). Accessed 12 Nov 1999.

Organization site

ISSN International Centre: The ISSN register. http://www.issn.org (2006). Accessed 20 Feb 2007.

Dataset with persistent identifier

Zheng L-Y, Guo X-S, He B, Sun L-J, Peng Y, Dong S-S, et al. Genome data from sweet and grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). GigaScience Database. 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.5524/100012 .

General formatting information

Manuscripts must be written in concise English. For help on scientific writing, or preparing your manuscript in English, please see Springer's  Author Academy .

Quick points:

• Use double line spacing
• Include line and page numbering
• Use SI units: Please ensure that all special characters used are embedded in the text, otherwise they will be lost during conversion to PDF
• Do not use page breaks in your manuscript

File formats

The following word processor file formats are acceptable for the main manuscript document:

• Microsoft word (DOC, DOCX)
• Rich text format (RTF)
• TeX/LaTeX 

Please note: editable files are required for processing in production. If your manuscript contains any non-editable files (such as PDFs) you will be required to re-submit an editable file if your manuscript is accepted.

For more information, see ' Preparing figures ' below.

Additional information for TeX/LaTeX users

You are encouraged to use the Springer Nature LaTeX template when preparing a submission. A PDF of your manuscript files will be compiled during submission using pdfLaTeX and TexLive 2021. All relevant editable source files must be uploaded during the submission process. Failing to submit these source files will cause unnecessary delays in the production process.  

Style and language

For editors and reviewers to accurately assess the work presented in your manuscript you need to ensure the English language is of sufficient quality to be understood. If you need help with writing in English you should consider:

• Getting a fast, free online grammar check .
• Visiting the English language tutorial which covers the common mistakes when writing in English.
• Asking a colleague who is proficient in English to review your manuscript for clarity.
• Using a professional language editing service where editors will improve the English to ensure that your meaning is clear and identify problems that require your review. Two such services are provided by our affiliates Nature Research Editing Service and American Journal Experts . SpringerOpen authors are entitled to a 10% discount on their first submission to either of these services. To claim 10% off English editing from Nature Research Editing Service, click here . To claim 10% off American Journal Experts, click here .

Please note that the use of a language editing service is not a requirement for publication in Journal of Big Data and does not imply or guarantee that the article will be selected for peer review or accepted.  为便于编辑和评审专家准确评估您稿件中陈述的研究工作，您需要确保文稿英语语言质量足以令人理解。如果您需要英文写作方面的帮助，您可以考虑：

• 获取快速、免费的在线  语法检查 。
• 查看一些有关英语写作中常见语言错误的 教程 。
• 请一位以英语为母语的同事审阅您的稿件是否表意清晰。
• 使用专业语言编辑服务，编辑人员会对英语进行润色，以确保您的意思表达清晰，并提出需要您复核的问题。例如我们的附属机构 Nature Research Editing Service 以及合作伙伴 American Journal Experts 都可以提供此类专业服务。SpringerOpen作者享受首次订单10%优惠，该优惠同时适用于两家公司。您只需点击以下链接即可开始。使用 Nature Research Editing Service的编辑润色10%的优惠服务，请点击 这里 。使用 American Journal Experts的10%优惠服务，请点击 这里 。

请注意，使用语言编辑服务并非在期刊上发表文章的必要条件，这也并不意味或保证文章将被选中进行同行评议或被接受。 エディターと査読者があなたの論文を正しく評価するには、使用されている英語の質が十分であることが必要とされます。英語での論文執筆に際してサポートが必要な場合には、次のオプションがあります：

• 高速なオンライン  文法チェック  を無料で受ける。
• 英語で執筆する際のよくある間違いに関する 英語のチュートリアル を参照する。
• 英語を母国語とする同僚に、原稿内の英語が明確であるかをチェックしてもらう。
• プロの英文校正サービスを利用する。校正者が原稿の意味を明確にしたり、問題点を指摘し、英語を向上させます。 Nature Research Editing Service と American Journal Experts の2つは弊社と提携しているサービスです。SpringerOpenのジャーナルの著者は、いずれかのサービスを初めて利用する際に、10%の割引を受けることができます。Nature Research Editing Serviceの10%割引を受けるには、 こちらをクリックしてください 。. American Journal Expertsの10%割引を受けるには、 こちらをクリックしてください 。

英文校正サービスの利用は、このジャーナルに掲載されるための条件ではないこと、また論文審査や受理を保証するものではないことに留意してください。 영어 원고의 경우, 에디터 및 리뷰어들이 귀하의 원고에 실린 결과물을 정확하게 평가할 수 있도록, 그들이 충분히 이해할 수 있을 만한 수준으로 작성되어야 합니다. 만약 영작문과 관련하여 도움을 받기를 원하신다면 다음의 사항들을 고려하여 주십시오:

• 영어 튜토리얼 페이지 에 방문하여 영어로 글을 쓸 때 자주하는 실수들을 확인합니다.
• 귀하의 원고의 표현을 명확히 해줄 영어 원어민 동료를 찾아서 리뷰를 의뢰합니다
• 리뷰에 대비하여, 원고의 의미를 명확하게 해주고 리뷰에서 요구하는 문제점들을 식별해서 영문 수준을 향상시켜주는 전문 영문 교정 서비스를 이용합니다. Nature Research Editing Service 와 American Journal Experts 에서 저희와 협약을 통해 서비스를 제공하고 있습니다. SpringerOpen에서는 위의 두 가지의 서비스를 첫 논문 투고를 위해 사용하시는 경우, 10%의 할인을 제공하고 있습니다. Nature Research Editing Service이용시 10% 할인을 요청하기 위해서는 여기 를 클릭해 주시고, American Journal Experts 이용시 10% 할인을 요청하기 위해서는 여기 를 클릭해 주십시오.

영문 교정 서비스는 게재를 위한 요구사항은 아니며, 해당 서비스의 이용이 피어 리뷰에 논문이 선택되거나 게재가 수락되는 것을 의미하거나 보장하지 않습니다.

Data and materials

For all journals, SpringerOpen strongly encourages all datasets on which the conclusions of the manuscript rely to be either deposited in publicly available repositories (where available and appropriate) or presented in the main paper or additional supporting files, in machine-readable format (such as spread sheets rather than PDFs) whenever possible. Please see the list of recommended repositories in our editorial policies.

For some journals, deposition of the data on which the conclusions of the manuscript rely is an absolute requirement. Please check the Instructions for Authors for the relevant journal and article type for journal specific policies.

For all manuscripts, information about data availability should be detailed in an ‘Availability of data and materials’ section. For more information on the content of this section, please see the Declarations section of the relevant journal’s Instruction for Authors. For more information on SpringerOpen's policies on data availability, please see our editorial policies .

Formatting the 'Availability of data and materials' section of your manuscript

The following format for the 'Availability of data and materials section of your manuscript should be used:

"The dataset(s) supporting the conclusions of this article is(are) available in the [repository name] repository, [unique persistent identifier and hyperlink to dataset(s) in http:// format]."

The following format is required when data are included as additional files:

"The dataset(s) supporting the conclusions of this article is(are) included within the article (and its additional file(s))."

For databases, this section should state the web/ftp address at which the database is available and any restrictions to its use by non-academics.

For software, this section should include:

• Project name: e.g. My bioinformatics project
• Project home page: e.g. http://sourceforge.net/projects/mged
• Archived version: DOI or unique identifier of archived software or code in repository (e.g. enodo)
• Operating system(s): e.g. Platform independent
• Programming language: e.g. Java
• Other requirements: e.g. Java 1.3.1 or higher, Tomcat 4.0 or higher
• License: e.g. GNU GPL, FreeBSD etc.
• Any restrictions to use by non-academics: e.g. licence needed

Information on available repositories for other types of scientific data, including clinical data, can be found in our editorial policies .

What should be cited?

Only articles, clinical trial registration records and abstracts that have been published or are in press, or are available through public e-print/preprint servers, may be cited.

Unpublished abstracts, unpublished data and personal communications should not be included in the reference list, but may be included in the text and referred to as "unpublished observations" or "personal communications" giving the names of the involved researchers. Obtaining permission to quote personal communications and unpublished data from the cited colleagues is the responsibility of the author. Either footnotes or endnotes are permitted. Journal abbreviations follow Index Medicus/MEDLINE.

Any in press articles cited within the references and necessary for the reviewers' assessment of the manuscript should be made available if requested by the editorial office.

Preparing figures

When preparing figures, please follow the formatting instructions below.

• Figure titles (max 15 words) and legends (max 300 words) should be provided in the main manuscript, not in the graphic file.
• Tables should NOT be submitted as figures but should be included in the main manuscript file.
• Multi-panel figures (those with parts a, b, c, d etc.) should be submitted as a single composite file that contains all parts of the figure.
• Figures should be numbered in the order they are first mentioned in the text, and uploaded in this order.
• Figures should be uploaded in the correct orientation.
• Figure keys should be incorporated into the graphic, not into the legend of the figure.
• Each figure should be closely cropped to minimize the amount of white space surrounding the illustration. Cropping figures improves accuracy when placing the figure in combination with other elements when the accepted manuscript is prepared for publication on our site. For more information on individual figure file formats, see our detailed instructions.
• Individual figure files should not exceed 10 MB. If a suitable format is chosen, this file size is adequate for extremely high quality figures.
• Please note that it is the responsibility of the author(s) to obtain permission from the copyright holder to reproduce figures (or tables) that have previously been published elsewhere. In order for all figures to be open access, authors must have permission from the rights holder if they wish to include images that have been published elsewhere in non open access journals. Permission should be indicated in the figure legend, and the original source included in the reference list.

Figure file types

We accept the following file formats for figures:

• EPS (suitable for diagrams and/or images)
• PDF (suitable for diagrams and/or images)
• Microsoft Word (suitable for diagrams and/or images, figures must be a single page)
• PowerPoint (suitable for diagrams and/or images, figures must be a single page)
• TIFF (suitable for images)
• JPEG (suitable for photographic images, less suitable for graphical images)
• PNG (suitable for images)
• BMP (suitable for images)
• CDX (ChemDraw - suitable for molecular structures)

Figure size and resolution

Figures are resized during publication of the final full text and PDF versions to conform to the SpringerOpen standard dimensions, which are detailed below.

Figures on the web:

• width of 600 pixels (standard), 1200 pixels (high resolution).

Figures in the final PDF version:

• width of 85 mm for half page width figure
• width of 170 mm for full page width figure
• maximum height of 225 mm for figure and legend
• image resolution of approximately 300 dpi (dots per inch) at the final size

Figures should be designed such that all information, including text, is legible at these dimensions. All lines should be wider than 0.25 pt when constrained to standard figure widths. All fonts must be embedded.

Figure file compression

Vector figures should if possible be submitted as PDF files, which are usually more compact than EPS files.

• TIFF files should be saved with LZW compression, which is lossless (decreases file size without decreasing quality) in order to minimize upload time.
• JPEG files should be saved at maximum quality.
• Conversion of images between file types (especially lossy formats such as JPEG) should be kept to a minimum to avoid degradation of quality.

If you have any questions or are experiencing a problem with figures, please contact the customer service team at [email protected] .

Preparing tables

When preparing tables, please follow the formatting instructions below.

• Tables should be numbered and cited in the text in sequence using Arabic numerals (i.e. Table 1, Table 2 etc.).
• Tables less than one A4 or Letter page in length can be placed in the appropriate location within the manuscript.
• Tables larger than one A4 or Letter page in length can be placed at the end of the document text file. Please cite and indicate where the table should appear at the relevant location in the text file so that the table can be added in the correct place during production.
• Larger datasets, or tables too wide for A4 or Letter landscape page can be uploaded as additional files. Please see [below] for more information.
• Tabular data provided as additional files can be uploaded as an Excel spreadsheet (.xls ) or comma separated values (.csv). Please use the standard file extensions.
• Table titles (max 15 words) should be included above the table, and legends (max 300 words) should be included underneath the table.
• Tables should not be embedded as figures or spreadsheet files, but should be formatted using ‘Table object’ function in your word processing program.
• Color and shading may not be used. Parts of the table can be highlighted using superscript, numbering, lettering, symbols or bold text, the meaning of which should be explained in a table legend.
• Commas should not be used to indicate numerical values.

If you have any questions or are experiencing a problem with tables, please contact the customer service team at [email protected] .

Preparing additional files

As the length and quantity of data is not restricted for many article types, authors can provide datasets, tables, movies, or other information as additional files.

All Additional files will be published along with the accepted article. Do not include files such as patient consent forms, certificates of language editing, or revised versions of the main manuscript document with tracked changes. Such files, if requested, should be sent by email to the journal’s editorial email address, quoting the manuscript reference number.

Results that would otherwise be indicated as "data not shown" should be included as additional files. Since many web links and URLs rapidly become broken, SpringerOpen requires that supporting data are included as additional files, or deposited in a recognized repository. Please do not link to data on a personal/departmental website. Do not include any individual participant details. The maximum file size for additional files is 20 MB each, and files will be virus-scanned on submission. Each additional file should be cited in sequence within the main body of text.

Submit manuscript

• Editorial Board
• Sign up for article alerts and news from this journal
• Follow us on Twitter

Annual Journal Metrics

2022 Citation Impact 8.1 - 2-year Impact Factor 5.095 - SNIP (Source Normalized Impact per Paper) 2.714 - SJR (SCImago Journal Rank)

2023 Speed 56 days submission to first editorial decision for all manuscripts (Median) 205 days submission to accept (Median)

2023 Usage  2,559,548 downloads 280 Altmetric mentions

• More about our metrics
• ISSN: 2196-1115 (electronic)

Brief Report

A Brief Report is a focused article of original research intended to advance its field of study.  It may contain up to 5 Figures or Tables presenting original data.

The article should also be conclusive and self-explanatory and may contain Supplementary Material such as Figures, Tables and Video files. In the studies involving noncoding RNA molecules the Authors should consider the following issues:

• The rationale to study a particular noncoding RNA needs to be specified in the introduction. 
• Studies concerning the function of these RNAs via mediating a single target or pathway should include studies on additional multiple targets/pathways to prove functional specificity. 
• Their proposed  function should be verified via the studies of the gain and/or loss of function. Detailed studies of signalling pathway(s) regulated by specific RNA should be carried out. 
• Details of the initial screen used to identify RNA species involvement in pathway/disease (number of subjects, statistical tests employed, percent change from controls) should be provided if applicable.

Please review the Editorial Policies around the use of human subjects/material/data and animal research before writing your Ethics Declarations. All human research must be done in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and all animal research (vertebrates and regulated invertebrates) in accordance with the Basel Declaration . Such research must be approved by the appropriate ethics committee and that information must be present in your Ethics Declaration. In the Ethics Declaration, you should provide:

• the number and date of ethics approval and information for that local ethics committee as confirming that they follow the Declaration of Helsinki for human research. 
• the number and dates of the ethics approval for animal research.

Cellular & Molecular Biology Letters  strongly encourages that all datasets on which the conclusions of the paper rely should be available to readers. We encourage authors to ensure that their datasets are either deposited in publicly available repositories (where available and appropriate) or presented in the main manuscript or additional supporting files whenever possible. Please see Springer Nature’s information on recommended repositories. Where a widely established research community expectation for data archiving in public repositories exists, submission to a community-endorsed, public repository is mandatory. A list of data where deposition is required, with the appropriate repositories, can be found on the  Editorial Policies Page .

For any submissions which include images from gels or western blots, authors are required to   include their raw image files as supplementary files  during submission. Failure to do so could cause delays in reviewing the manuscript. In addition, when blots are the subject of quantitation via scanning at least 3 blots performed independently has to be used. At least 3 copies of the originals should be attached. All images are checked by software for detection of duplication or manipulation before acceptance.

Language quality check

Authors should be aware that Springer Nature offers a free service whereby authors can have their manuscript checked for grammatical and readability before submissions. We encourage authors to make use of this tool to improve the quality of their manuscript. 

Graphical abstract image

A graphical abstract image must be uploaded during submission. This is a picture which will appear underneath the Abstract on the journal website.  It should be relevant to the topic covered and serve to attract readers' attention to the article. The graphical abstract image may be one of the images included in the article or any other image the authors feel to be appropriate. It must have landscape orientation, approximately 920 pixels width x 300 pixels height,  and should be uploaded as a JPEG, PNG or SVG file. Please note that graphical abstract images must comply with BMC's copyright policy.

The Editors strongly encourage authors to limit the use of abbreviations or acronyms within the title of their manuscripts. Exceptions for widely-used terms within the scientific community (such as DNA or RNA) permitted.

Preparing your manuscript

The information below details the section headings that you should include in your manuscript and what information should be within each section.

Please note that your manuscript must include a 'Declarations' section including all of the subheadings (please see below for more information).

The title page should:

• "A versus B in the treatment of C: a randomized controlled trial", "X is a risk factor for Y: a case control study", "What is the impact of factor X on subject Y: A systematic review"
• or for non-clinical or non-research studies a description of what the article reports
• if a collaboration group should be listed as an author, please list the Group name as an author. If you would like the names of the individual members of the Group to be searchable through their individual PubMed records, please include this information in the “Acknowledgements” section in accordance with the instructions below
• Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT , do not currently satisfy our authorship criteria . Notably an attribution of authorship carries with it accountability for the work, which cannot be effectively applied to LLMs. Use of an LLM should be properly documented in the Methods section (and if a Methods section is not available, in a suitable alternative part) of the manuscript.
• indicate the corresponding author

The Abstract should not exceed 350 words. Please minimize the use of abbreviations and do not cite references in the abstract. Reports of randomized controlled trials should follow the CONSORT extension for abstracts. The abstract must include the following separate sections:

• Background: the context and purpose of the study
• Methods: how the study was performed and statistical tests used
• Results: the main findings
• Conclusions: brief summary and potential implications
• Trial registration: If your article reports the results of a health care intervention on human participants, it must be registered in an appropriate registry and the registration number and date of registration should be stated in this section. If it was not registered prospectively (before enrollment of the first participant), you should include the words 'retrospectively registered'. See our editorial policies for more information on trial registration

Three to ten keywords representing the main content of the article.

The Background section should explain the background to the study, its aims, a summary of the existing literature and why this study was necessary or its contribution to the field.

The methods section should include:

• the aim, design and setting of the study
• the characteristics of participants or description of materials
• a clear description of all processes, interventions and comparisons. Generic drug names should generally be used. When proprietary brands are used in research, include the brand names in parentheses
• the type of statistical analysis used, including a power calculation if appropriate

This should include the findings of the study including, if appropriate, results of statistical analysis which must be included either in the text or as tables and figures.

This section should discuss the implications of the findings in context of existing research and highlight limitations of the study.

Conclusions

This should state clearly the main conclusions and provide an explanation of the importance and relevance of the study reported.

List of abbreviations

If abbreviations are used in the text they should be defined in the text at first use, and a list of abbreviations should be provided.

Declarations

All manuscripts must contain the following sections under the heading 'Declarations':

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Consent for publication, availability of data and materials, competing interests, authors' contributions, acknowledgements.

• Authors' information (optional)

Please see below for details on the information to be included in these sections.

If any of the sections are not relevant to your manuscript, please include the heading and write 'Not applicable' for that section. 

Manuscripts reporting studies involving human participants, human data or human tissue must:

• include a statement on ethics approval and consent (even where the need for approval was waived)
• include the name of the ethics committee that approved the study and the committee’s reference number if appropriate

Studies involving animals must include a statement on ethics approval and for experimental studies involving client-owned animals, authors must also include a statement on informed consent from the client or owner.

See our editorial policies for more information.

If your manuscript does not report on or involve the use of any animal or human data or tissue, please state “Not applicable” in this section.

If your manuscript contains any individual person’s data in any form (including any individual details, images or videos), consent for publication must be obtained from that person, or in the case of children, their parent or legal guardian. All presentations of case reports must have consent for publication.

You can use your institutional consent form or our consent form if you prefer. You should not send the form to us on submission, but we may request to see a copy at any stage (including after publication).

See our editorial policies for more information on consent for publication.

If your manuscript does not contain data from any individual person, please state “Not applicable” in this section.

All manuscripts must include an ‘Availability of data and materials’ statement. Data availability statements should include information on where data supporting the results reported in the article can be found including, where applicable, hyperlinks to publicly archived datasets analysed or generated during the study. By data we mean the minimal dataset that would be necessary to interpret, replicate and build upon the findings reported in the article. We recognise it is not always possible to share research data publicly, for instance when individual privacy could be compromised, and in such instances data availability should still be stated in the manuscript along with any conditions for access.

Authors are also encouraged to preserve search strings on searchRxiv https://searchrxiv.org/ , an archive to support researchers to report, store and share their searches consistently and to enable them to review and re-use existing searches. searchRxiv enables researchers to obtain a digital object identifier (DOI) for their search, allowing it to be cited. 

Data availability statements can take one of the following forms (or a combination of more than one if required for multiple datasets):

• The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available in the [NAME] repository, [PERSISTENT WEB LINK TO DATASETS]
• The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
• All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].
• The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due [REASON WHY DATA ARE NOT PUBLIC] but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
• Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
• The data that support the findings of this study are available from [third party name] but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of [third party name].
• Not applicable. If your manuscript does not contain any data, please state 'Not applicable' in this section.

More examples of template data availability statements, which include examples of openly available and restricted access datasets, are available here .

BioMed Central strongly encourages the citation of any publicly available data on which the conclusions of the paper rely in the manuscript. Data citations should include a persistent identifier (such as a DOI) and should ideally be included in the reference list. Citations of datasets, when they appear in the reference list, should include the minimum information recommended by DataCite and follow journal style. Dataset identifiers including DOIs should be expressed as full URLs. For example:

Hao Z, AghaKouchak A, Nakhjiri N, Farahmand A. Global integrated drought monitoring and prediction system (GIDMaPS) data sets. figshare. 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.853801

With the corresponding text in the Availability of data and materials statement:

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available in the [NAME] repository, [PERSISTENT WEB LINK TO DATASETS]. [Reference number]  

If you wish to co-submit a data note describing your data to be published in BMC Research Notes , you can do so by visiting our submission portal . Data notes support open data and help authors to comply with funder policies on data sharing. Co-published data notes will be linked to the research article the data support ( example ).

All financial and non-financial competing interests must be declared in this section.

See our editorial policies for a full explanation of competing interests. If you are unsure whether you or any of your co-authors have a competing interest please contact the editorial office.

Please use the authors initials to refer to each authors' competing interests in this section.

If you do not have any competing interests, please state "The authors declare that they have no competing interests" in this section.

All sources of funding for the research reported should be declared. If the funder has a specific role in the conceptualization, design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript, this should be declared.

The individual contributions of authors to the manuscript should be specified in this section. Guidance and criteria for authorship can be found in our editorial policies .

Please use initials to refer to each author's contribution in this section, for example: "FC analyzed and interpreted the patient data regarding the hematological disease and the transplant. RH performed the histological examination of the kidney, and was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript."

Please acknowledge anyone who contributed towards the article who does not meet the criteria for authorship including anyone who provided professional writing services or materials.

Authors should obtain permission to acknowledge from all those mentioned in the Acknowledgements section.

See our editorial policies for a full explanation of acknowledgements and authorship criteria.

If you do not have anyone to acknowledge, please write "Not applicable" in this section.

Group authorship (for manuscripts involving a collaboration group): if you would like the names of the individual members of a collaboration Group to be searchable through their individual PubMed records, please ensure that the title of the collaboration Group is included on the title page and in the submission system and also include collaborating author names as the last paragraph of the “Acknowledgements” section. Please add authors in the format First Name, Middle initial(s) (optional), Last Name. You can add institution or country information for each author if you wish, but this should be consistent across all authors.

Please note that individual names may not be present in the PubMed record at the time a published article is initially included in PubMed as it takes PubMed additional time to code this information.

Authors' information

This section is optional.

You may choose to use this section to include any relevant information about the author(s) that may aid the reader's interpretation of the article, and understand the standpoint of the author(s). This may include details about the authors' qualifications, current positions they hold at institutions or societies, or any other relevant background information. Please refer to authors using their initials. Note this section should not be used to describe any competing interests.

Footnotes can be used to give additional information, which may include the citation of a reference included in the reference list. They should not consist solely of a reference citation, and they should never include the bibliographic details of a reference. They should also not contain any figures or tables.

Footnotes to the text are numbered consecutively; those to tables should be indicated by superscript lower-case letters (or asterisks for significance values and other statistical data). Footnotes to the title or the authors of the article are not given reference symbols.

Always use footnotes instead of endnotes.

Examples of the Vancouver reference style are shown below.

See our editorial policies for author guidance on good citation practice

Web links and URLs: All web links and URLs, including links to the authors' own websites, should be given a reference number and included in the reference list rather than within the text of the manuscript. They should be provided in full, including both the title of the site and the URL, as well as the date the site was accessed, in the following format: The Mouse Tumor Biology Database. http://tumor.informatics.jax.org/mtbwi/index.do . Accessed 20 May 2013. If an author or group of authors can clearly be associated with a web link, such as for weblogs, then they should be included in the reference.

Example reference style:

Article within a journal

Smith JJ. The world of science. Am J Sci. 1999;36:234-5.

Article within a journal (no page numbers)

Rohrmann S, Overvad K, Bueno-de-Mesquita HB, Jakobsen MU, Egeberg R, Tjønneland A, et al. Meat consumption and mortality - results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. BMC Medicine. 2013;11:63.

Article within a journal by DOI

Slifka MK, Whitton JL. Clinical implications of dysregulated cytokine production. Dig J Mol Med. 2000; doi:10.1007/s801090000086.

Article within a journal supplement

Frumin AM, Nussbaum J, Esposito M. Functional asplenia: demonstration of splenic activity by bone marrow scan. Blood 1979;59 Suppl 1:26-32.

Book chapter, or an article within a book

Wyllie AH, Kerr JFR, Currie AR. Cell death: the significance of apoptosis. In: Bourne GH, Danielli JF, Jeon KW, editors. International review of cytology. London: Academic; 1980. p. 251-306.

OnlineFirst chapter in a series (without a volume designation but with a DOI)

Saito Y, Hyuga H. Rate equation approaches to amplification of enantiomeric excess and chiral symmetry breaking. Top Curr Chem. 2007. doi:10.1007/128_2006_108.

Complete book, authored

Blenkinsopp A, Paxton P. Symptoms in the pharmacy: a guide to the management of common illness. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 1998.

Online document

Doe J. Title of subordinate document. In: The dictionary of substances and their effects. Royal Society of Chemistry. 1999. http://www.rsc.org/dose/title of subordinate document. Accessed 15 Jan 1999.

Online database

Healthwise Knowledgebase. US Pharmacopeia, Rockville. 1998. http://www.healthwise.org. Accessed 21 Sept 1998.

Supplementary material/private homepage

Doe J. Title of supplementary material. 2000. http://www.privatehomepage.com. Accessed 22 Feb 2000.

University site

Doe, J: Title of preprint. http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/mydata.html (1999). Accessed 25 Dec 1999.

Doe, J: Trivial HTTP, RFC2169. ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2169.txt (1999). Accessed 12 Nov 1999.

Organization site

ISSN International Centre: The ISSN register. http://www.issn.org (2006). Accessed 20 Feb 2007.

Dataset with persistent identifier

Zheng L-Y, Guo X-S, He B, Sun L-J, Peng Y, Dong S-S, et al. Genome data from sweet and grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). GigaScience Database. 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.5524/100012 .

Figures, tables and additional files

See  General formatting guidelines  for information on how to format figures, tables and additional files.

Submit manuscript

• Editorial Board
• Instructions for Editors
• Sign up for article alerts and news from this journal
• Follow us on Twitter

Affiliated with

Annual Journal Metrics

2022 Citation Impact 8.3 - 2-year Impact Factor 7.2 - 5-year Impact Factor 1.573 - SNIP (Source Normalized Impact per Paper) 1.643 - SJR (SCImago Journal Rank)

2023 Speed 11 days submission to first editorial decision for all manuscripts (Median) 105 days submission to accept (Median)

2023 Usage   6,42,615   downloads 1,059 Altmetric mentions

• More about our metrics

Cellular & Molecular Biology Letters

ISSN: 1689-1392

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Advertisement

Original research articles

Regular articles.

• Introduction
• Methods (must include sufficient information to allow readers to understand the article content)
• Acknowledgements
• Authorship Contributions
• Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest
• Figure Legends

Supplemental data - to be published online only - may include additional information regarding methodology, supplemental figures or tables, or primary data sets; it must be submitted with the original manuscript submission so it can be peer reviewed. ( See "Supplemental data" )

Any involvement of medical writers/researchers, particularly those employed or supported by the pharmaceutical industry, in the writing of an article must be clearly defined and disclosed in the Authorship and/or the Acknowledgements section(s) as appropriate. This type of involvement must also be disclosed to the Editor-in-Chief in the Cover Letter. For more information, see the journal  Conflict of interest disclosure  and the  editorial policies for authors.

Definitive original research articles of exceptional scientific importance may be considered for designation as Plenary Papers. The decision to highlight an article as a Plenary Paper rests entirely with the Editors.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The journal welcomes submission of systematic reviews with meta-analysis, which should be submitted as a Regular Article. A literature review should be performed and summarized. Data (where available) should be systematically extracted, and summative statistics should be presented where possible.

Brief Reports

Short manuscripts definitively documenting either experimental results or informative clinical observations will be considered for publication in this category. Single-case reports or case series cannot be accommodated unless they elucidate very novel and important disease biology or approaches to therapy. Brief Reports are not intended to allow publication of incomplete or preliminary findings. The review process is equally rigorous as for Regular Articles and the acceptance rate is lower. Brief Reports may not exceed 1,500 words of text -counting only the Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. Abstracts must not exceed 200 words and should be a single paragraph with no subheadings. Only 3 figures/tables and 25 references may be included. The sections of a Brief Report should be ordered as follows:

• Methods (must include sufficient information to allow readers to allow reproduction of the data)
• A combined Results and Discussion section

Letters to Blood

The journal accepts original communications that bring out a focused but novel and important message on basic or clinical topics in hematology. All clinical submissions must have been approved by an ethics committee or institutional review board. Consideration for publication will be based on priority and interest to readership as determined by Editorial evaluation and peer review. In general, Letters to Blood report primary investigations that provide novel and important insights into hematologic biology or pathobiology, or the therapy of hematologic disease. Submissions are not intended to allow publication of incomplete or preliminary findings.

Single-case reports or small case series are considered in the journal only if they offer truly important data elucidating disease biology or therapy.

Letters to Blood include no more than 1,200 words of text, 25 references, and 2 figures or tables. Letters must include a focused abstract of no more than 40 words.  A clear title is required. Letters to Blood are posted to First Edition, indexed by Medline, and appear in PubMed. Submission fees and page charges do not apply to Letters.

Other article types

Review articles.

Review articles are welcomed by the journal and are generally solicited by the Editor-in-Chief; authors wishing to submit an unsolicited Review Article are invited to contact the Editor-in-Chief prior to submission in order to screen the proposed topic for relevance and priority, given other review articles that may already be in preparation. Review articles should focus on recent scientific or clinical advances in an area of broad interest to those in the field of hematology. Such articles must be concise and critical and should include appropriate references to the literature. All Review Articles, including those solicited by the Editors, are rigorously peer reviewed before a final publication decision is made.

Review articles should not exceed 4,000 words in length; the abstract must not exceed 250 words; we recommend a limit of 100 references. We wish for Review Articles to be written by experts who are personally committed to writing the manuscript, and therefore limit authorship to a maximum of 3 authors. The use of tables and color figures to summarize critical points is encouraged; the journal offers assistance with preparation or improvement of figures by professional illustrators, once the article is accepted.

Pharmaceutical or medical device company employees and medical writers supported by a pharmaceutical or medical device company are not permitted to have any role in writing Review, Perspective, How I Treat, Blood Spotlight, or Evidence-based Focused Review articles. The use of  editing services for non-English speakers  is permissible, but it must be disclosed. Please direct any questions regarding this policy to the  Editor-in-Chief  prior to submission.

Special Reports

Special Reports encompass manuscripts that are neither reviews nor original reports of primary research. They may include consensus statements, guidelines, statements from task forces, or recommendations. Pharmaceutical or medical device company employees cannot act as authors, and medical writers supported by a pharmaceutical or medical device company are not permitted to have any role in writing Special Reports.

These articles should not exceed 250 words for the abstract; a limit of 100 references is recommended, although this can be flexible. Supplemental files are permitted. The use of tables and figures to summarize critical points is encouraged; the journal offers aid with preparation or improvement of figures by professional illustrators, once the article is accepted. The journal may also consider interactive links associated with the online article.

Perspectives

Perspectives are articles discussing significant topics and controversies relevant to hematology, generally from a more personal or opinion-based standpoint than a Review Article. Interested authors should  correspond with the Editor-in-Chief  prior to submission to discuss the suitability of the proposed subject matter. The length of the article should not exceed 4,000 words; the abstract must not exceed 250 words; we recommend a limit of 100 references. We wish for Perspectives to be written by experts who are personally committed to writing the manuscript, and therefore limit authorship to a maximum of 3 authors. Typically, Perspectives should state the topic and background information concisely, discuss opposing viewpoints, and make recommendations for further investigations or actions.

Pharmaceutical or medical device company employees and medical writers supported by a pharmaceutical or medical device company are not permitted to have any role in writing Review, Perspective, How I Treat,  Blood  Spotlight, or Evidence-based Focused Review articles. The use of  editing services for non-English speakers  is permissible, but it must be disclosed. Please direct any questions regarding this policy to the  Editor-in-Chief  prior to submission.

Blood  Spotlight

Blood  Spotlights are articles that focus on emerging scientific and clinical developments or a recent burst of advances on a particular theme in a circumscript area and are generally solicited by the Editor-in-Chief; authors wishing to submit an unsolicited  Blood  Spotlight are invited to contact the Editor-in-Chief prior to submission to allow screening of the proposed topic for relevance and priority in relation to other Spotlight articles that may already be in preparation. Spotlights deal with scientific or clinical topics that typically have surfaced in the last 1-3 years and that fomented a significant interest in the field of hematology. Spotlights must offer critical discussions in a highly condensed and succinct format. They should include appropriate references to the literature. All  Blood  Spotlights, including those solicited by the Editors, are rigorously peer reviewed before a final publication decision is made.

Blood  Spotlights should not exceed 1,500-2,000 words in length, should include an abstract of no more than 80 words, and we recommend a limit of 80 references. We wish for  Blood  Spotlight articles to be written by experts who are personally committed to writing the manuscript, and therefore limit authorship to a maximum of 3 authors. Article titles should be concise. The inclusion of no more than 2 tables and/or figures to highlight and summarize critical points is encouraged; the journal offers assistance with preparation or improvement of figures by professional illustrators, once the article is accepted.

Pharmaceutical or medical device company employees and medical writers supported by a pharmaceutical or medical device company are not permitted to have any role in writing Review, Perspective, How I Treat,  Blood  Spotlight, or Evidence-based Focused Review articles. The use of  editing services for non-English speakers  is permissible, but it must be disclosed. Please direct any questions regarding this policy to the  Editor-in-Chief  prior to submission.

How I Treat

The journal welcomes articles written by expert clinicians offering up-to-date information and guidance regarding diagnosis and treatment of hematological diseases and clinical situations based on longstanding clinical experience.  Each How I Treat article focuses on a single disease for which new information has recently emerged. Because many hematologic diseases are rare, their clinical management cannot always be based on large clinical trials. This increases the value of having articles authored by leading experts with in depth experience in the chosen disease.

How I Treat articles need to allow the clinical reader to gain greater insight into the biology of the disease and how it shapes clinical decision making through the synthesis of an expert clinician. Furthermore, these articles provide directions in the therapeutic management of common or complex clinical situations of the disease. The How I Treat articles should contain a minimum of two illustrative clinical cases (a maximum of four clinical cases is recommended), which should enhance their practical usefulness among the readers. The exemplary clinical cases in the text focus on the daily reality of clinical practice and present the information in an easily digestible format. Thus, the clinical cases need to be functionally integrated into the text for a full understanding of the issues and offer a link to the scientific background and diagnostic and therapeutic considerations in a practically meaningful way. For instance, a How I Treat article could comprise: I. Introduction; II. Two to six cases each highlighting distinct clinically relevant issues and/or management dilemmas which are linked to the discussion that is presented; and III. Conclusion. Alternatively, one or two cases are presented that set the stage and are referred throughout the discussion. Selected supporting figures and tables are recommended. For examples see eg AM Vannucchi, How I treat polycythemia vera, Blood (2014) 124 (22): 3212-3220 ;  G. Ossenkoppele and B. Löwenberg, How I treat the older patient with acute myeloid leukemia, Blood (2015) 125 (5): 767-774 . These pieces are generally solicited by the Editor-in-Chief, though any interested author should correspond with the Editor-in-Chief prior to submission to discuss the suitability of the proposed subject matter.  We wish for How I Treat articles to be written by experts who are personally committed to writing the manuscript, and therefore limit authorship to a maximum of 3 authors. The length should not exceed 4,000 words; the abstract must not exceed 200 words; we recommend a limit of 100 references.

Pharmaceutical or medical device company employees and medical writers supported by a pharmaceutical or medical device company are not permitted to have any role in writing Review, Perspective, How I Treat,  Blood  Spotlight, or Evidence-based Focused Review articles. The use of  editing services for non-English speakers  is permissible, but it must be disclosed. Please direct any questions regarding this policy to the  Editor-in-Chief  prior to submission. All How I Treat articles, including those solicited by the Editors, are rigorously peer reviewed before a final publication decision is made.

Blood  Work

Blood  welcomes submissions of photomicrographs and brief case descriptions to emphasize the value that the microscope adds to the history and physical exam.  Blood  Work places importance on the peripheral smear. The figure must clearly demonstrate the feature(s) being described and the discussion should emphasize this teaching point(s).  The objective used (e.g. ×100 objective) should be stated within the text.  Blood  Work is an educational instrument to physicians and hematology students. Studies or case studies will not be accepted. 

Each submission must contain a single, high-resolution figure (may be a composite) formatted as a TIFF (minimum 300 dpi) and a discussion of no more than 200 words describing the clinical case linked to the image and summary teaching point. Each piece should have a maximum of two authors and should not contain references. All other policies governing submissions to the journal apply to  Blood  Work. There is no submission fee for  Blood  Work. For questions about submission to this section, please contact the Journal’s Editorial Office at  [email protected] .

Accepted material will be submitted to the  ASH Image Bank  for the Editor-in Chief’s consideration.

Blood Commentary

The Editors invite experts in the field to write brief commentaries introducing and placing into context selected primary research articles included in each issue of  Blood .

Short, relevant comments that would expand reader understanding of Blood articles can be submitted as Comments. These contributions undergo a rapid editorial review and are posted shortly after acceptance. Further requirements and policies:

• Comments must have no more than 10 authors
• no more than 300 words of text
• No more than 5 references
• Tables and figures cannot be submitted
• Any conflicts of interest (see Conflict of interest disclosure) must accompany Comments

Comments that are not directly related to a published article, that duplicate points similar to those of already posted comments, or that are characterized by profanity, personal attacks, unprofessional tone or content, or offensive, abusive or libelous language will not be posted. Authors should pay special attention to spelling and grammar.

Authors of published articles are encouraged to respond with their own comments to Comments that have been posted in reference to their articles. Comments are not indexed by Medline.

Affiliations

• Current Issue
• First edition
• Collections
• Submit to Blood
• About Blood
• Subscriptions
• Public Access
• Permissions
• Blood Classifieds
• Advertising in Blood
• Terms and Conditions

American Society of Hematology

• 2021 L Street NW, Suite 900
• Washington, DC 20036
• TEL +1 202-776-0544
• FAX +1 202-776-0545

ASH Publications

• Blood Advances
• Blood Neoplasia
• Blood Vessels, Thrombosis & Hemostasis
• Hematology, ASH Education Program
• ASH Clinical News
• The Hematologist
• Publications
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Terms of Use

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

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

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

The lost art of short communications in academia

Jeremiah joven joaquin.

1 Department of Philosophy, De La Salle University, 2401 Taft Avenue, 0922 Manila, Philippines

Raymond R. Tan

2 Department of Chemical Engineering, De La Salle University, 2401 Taft Avenue, 0922 Manila, Philippines

Short communications are an integral part of academic journal publishing since they serve as a forum for scholarly debate on recently published journal articles. Their prestige and popularity, however, have been declining in the present academic setting. In this short note, we offer several reasons for this phenomenon.

In their letter to editor, Turki et al., ( 2018 ) showed why letters to journal editors are of great importance in the scientific community. 1 In this note, we continue this discussion and extend it to short communications in general. Short communications may come as commentaries, opinions, reply articles, abstracts, research briefs, notes, notices, and correspondences to the editor. Alternative terminologies are also used by some journals (e.g., “microarticles” instead of “short communications” and “matters arising” instead of “letters to the editor”). Generally, short papers reporting primary research results are peer reviewed, while policies on those giving opinions, comments, or perspectives vary widely across journals (Cappell, 2010 ; Peh & Ng, 2010 ). Here, we refer to such brief papers collectively unless otherwise stated.

In principle, short communications in academic journals provide an avenue for rapid publication of potentially important results and up-to-date information, without the detailed documentation that comes with a full-length research article (Baldwin, 2014 ). However, this does not mean that they do not have precise methods and robust results as full-length papers. After all, a 1000-word medical paper may describe the results of a clinical trial on a set of 2000 patients. 2

There are notable examples of groundbreaking short communications in the history of twentieth century science. In the physical sciences, for example, the Nobel Prize-winning discovery of the double-helix structure of DNA was reported by Watson and Crick ( 1953 ) in a two-page note in Nature less than a month after it was submitted. This work is now one of the cornerstones of modern biotechnology. It also illustrates the role of short papers as a means of rapid dissemination of findings in a highly competitive setting where authors do not want to get scooped by other research groups. Moreover, a letter to the editor by Seifritz ( 1990 ) in the same journal proposed to accelerate the natural weathering of minerals to capture CO 2 from the atmosphere. It is too early to say if this technique will eventually play a major role in global climate change mitigation efforts in the coming decades, but this brief contribution of under 300 words has spawned an important sub-area of carbon management research, and now has over 400 citations in the Scopus database.

In the more formal sciences, like mathematics and logic, the discipline-defining paper by Nash ( 1950 ) in the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences catapulted game theory as the standard explanatory model in economics. The short note by Church ( 1936 ) in the Journal of Symbolic Logic , along with other related papers of the era, paved the way in the development of the top-down approaches to artificial intelligence. An abstract published by Kripke ( 1959 ) in the same journal announced the possible worlds semantics for modal logics, which is now the standard semantical device used in formal linguistics and philosophy.

More recently, the COVID-19 pandemic has shown the importance of short communications in medical sciences and public health journals. At the onset of the pandemic, experts and scholars were grappling about the nature of the disease, the public health policies needed to contain its spread, and the vaccine protocols that would eventually eradicate it. Short communications in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet (Elsevier), Journal of Public Health (Oxford), and other high quality academic journals proved to be an invaluable resource of up-to-date peer reviewed information about COVID-19. A notable example is a research note published at the onset of the pandemic in February 2020 that first described the likely role of asymptomatic transmission in propagating COVID-19 (Bai et al., 2020 ). This result contributed to the implementation of various control measures, including lockdowns, throughout the world.

Despite the numerous cases of successful short communications, their status in present academia seems to be in a decline. 3 For example, some universities regard them with less prestige than full articles when it comes to academic career assessments. We offer five hypotheses to explain this trend.

First, some academics may simply have a wrong impression about the nature of short communications in academics journals because the very terms used to label them are misleading. Terms like “Commentary”, “Opinion Piece”, “Critical Notice”, “Letter to the Editor”, and others of the same ilk may give the impression that the articles in these sections are of the same quality as those found in popular magazines such as Time or The Economist . 4 Because of these misleading terms, some academics may have the impression that published short communications have not gone through the same peer-review rigor that full-length research articles have gone through (Cappell, 2010 ; Kirsch, 2008 ).

Second, some academics think that the emergence of other (digital) platforms like preprint servers (e.g., arXiv.org), academic blogs, social media (e.g., Twitter and FaceBook), and even the personal websites of academics make short communications obsolete (Alperin et al., 2019 ; Wang & Zan 2019 ). The thought is that since one could already “publish” his/her full paper in these platforms (and have it readily reviewed and checked by peers), there is no need to communicate initial results as short papers in academic journals (Mandavilli, 2011 ). In particular, preprints can get significant publicity and media mileage even without the benefit of the quality assurance that comes with peer review. Moreover, there is related worry about being scooped by others. Published initial results in short communications are still not viewed as full research articles. Thus, an academic may think that someone else may beat him or her to the punch if s/he just publish a short communication. A historical case in point is the well-known simulated annealing algorithm for solving optimization problems, which is widely attributed to Kirkpatrick et al. ( 1983 ). A competing work was published concurrently as a largely forgotten short communication (Smith et al., 1983 ); to date, the latter paper has been cited just 43 times in the Scopus database, compared to over 28,000 for the former.

Third, with the current pressure to have more indexed and cited research articles in their portfolios, most academics do not see publishing short communications could increase their academic standing (Neghina & Nenghina 2011 ). Not all published abstracts, letters to the editor, and commentary papers are indexed in Scopus or Web of Science (WoS). Since most universities put premium in Scopus- or WoS-indexed publications, academics might be more motivated to write full-length papers than short ones. This argument, of course, extends to the academic’s citation count considerations and the measure of the overall academic impact of his/her work; the additional delay incurred in preparing a full-length research article is viewed as justified by the prospect of more future citations. 5

Fourth, journal editors themselves may consider these short papers either to be archaic and irrelevant in contemporary research discourse, or as being detrimental to journal performance metrics such as Impact Factor or CiteScore. The decreasing rate of publication of these brief contributions in mainstream literature can then lead to a vicious evolutionary spiral, with rejection rates escalating steadily because editors and reviewers alike become increasingly unfamiliar with proper norms to apply in evaluating new submissions. In response, potential authors may then become reluctant to invest energy into a high-risk, low-reward publication option. 6

Finally, fifth, the original purpose of rapid publication has weakened due to technological shifts of journals. In addition to the aforementioned trend in the rapid dissemination of preliminary findings via preprints (Johansson et al., 2018 ), scientific literature is now processed primarily in electronic form. Delays associated with the physical transfer of documents are a thing of the past. Peer review is carried out over the Internet, and many journals now keep track of and publicly report manuscript turnover time as a performance metric. Accepted manuscripts that are technically still “in press” are usually accessible to readers (and de facto published) long before the final versions come out in print. This technology-driven trend has made it easier for researchers to establish priority using the conventional route of the full research article over short papers.

Given this trend and its drivers, we feel that short communications will likely lose their high status in the academe. Unless journal editors and administrators themselves do something about it, writing short communications may be a lost art in many disciplines in the near future. The implication is that potentially groundbreaking ideas similar to those we cited here may slip through the cracks and never see the light of day. To avert this trend, editors need to make a concerted effort to ensure that brief papers remain an important part of journal portfolios.

Author’s contributions

The authors jointly did the conceptualization, writing, and editing of this work.

No funding was received for this work.

Declarations

The authors declared that there is no conflict of interest.

1 A similar argument was presented by Afifi ( 2006 ), Satyanarayana, et al. ( 1999 ) and Tierney, O’Rourke & Fenton ( 2015 ).

2 Our thanks to the referee for highlighting this point.

3 The exception here lies in disciplines (e.g., the health sciences) with robust traditions in the use of short communications coupled with supplementary information to document details not found in the main manuscript.

4 This is not to say that articles in popular magazines are not of good quality—in fact, some could be considered as literary masterpieces.

5 It must be noted, however, that an early bibliometric study by Satyanarayana et al. ( 1999 ) found no significant difference in citations of short communications and full papers. Their results were of limited scope and there have been no published attempts to extend or update their analysis.

6 However, this hypothesis remains to be proven through a proper bibliometric study. Detailed journal acceptance statistics are generally not published is a major stumbling block for such investigations.

• Afifi, M. (2006). Encouraging letters to the editor in EMHJ . Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal 12(6), 933–934. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/117178 [ PubMed ]
• Alperin JP, Gomez CJ, Haustein S. Identifying diffusion patterns of research articles on Twitter: A case study of online engagement with open access articles. Public Understanding of Science. 2019; 28 (1):2–18. doi: 10.1177/0963662518761733. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bai Y, Yao L, Wei T, Tian F, Jin D-Y, Chen L, Wang M. Presumed asymptomatic carrier transmission of COVID-19. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2020 doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.2565. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baldwin M. ‘Keeping in the race’: Physics, publication speed and national publishing strategies in Nature , 1895–1939. British Journal for the History of Science. 2014; 47 (2):257–279. doi: 10.1017/S0007087413000381. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cappell MS. Is lumping peer-reviewed case reports together with non-peer-reviewed comments for publication as letters to the editor appropriate? Official Journal of the American College of Gastroenterology. 2010; 105 (8):1901. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2010.219. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Church A. A Note on the Entscheidungsproblem . Journal of Symbolic Logic. 1936; 1 (1):40–41. doi: 10.2307/2269326. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johansson MA, Reich NG, Meyers LA, Lipsitch M. Preprints: An underutilized mechanism to accelerate outbreak science. PLoS Medicine. 2018; 15 (4):e1002549. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002549. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt CD, Jr, Vecchi MP. Optimization by simulated annealing. Science. 1983; 220 (4598):671–680. doi: 10.1126/science.220.4598.671. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kirsch M. Letter to the Editor: Competition or Search for Truth? Official Journal of the American College of Gastroenterology. 2008; 103 (7):1596. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01685.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kripke SA. Semantical Analysis of Modal Logic (abstract) Journal of Symbolic Logic. 1959; 24 (4):323–324. doi: 10.1017/S0022481200123321. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mandavilli A. Peer review: Trial by Twitter. Nature. 2011; 469 (7330):286–287. doi: 10.1038/469286a. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nash JF. Equilibrium Points in N-person Games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 1950; 36 (1):48–49. doi: 10.1073/pnas.36.1.48. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Neghina R, Neghina AM. How to build a scientific publishing career based on hundreds of letters-to-the-editor: “The Art of Loss” Accountability in Research. 2011; 18 (4):247–249. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2011.584761. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peh WC, Ng KH. Writing a letter to the editor. Singapore Medical Journal. 2010; 51 (7):532–535. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Satyanarayana K, Srivastava D, Sreenivas V. The relevance of short communication in scholarly journals: An empirical study. Scientometrics. 1999; 44 :47–58. doi: 10.1007/BF02458477. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seifritz W. CO 2 Disposal by Means of Silicates. Nature. 1990; 345 :486. doi: 10.1038/345486b0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith WE, Barrett HH, Paxman RG. Reconstruction of objects from coded images by simulated annealing. Optics Letters. 1983; 8 (4):199–201. doi: 10.1364/OL.8.000199. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tierney E, O’Rourke C, Fenton JE. What is the role of ‘the letter to the editor’? European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 2015; 272 (9):2089–2093. doi: 10.1007/s00405-014-3289-7. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Turki H, Taieb MAH, Aouicha MB. The Value of Letters to the Editor. Scientometrics. 2018; 117 (2):1285–1287. doi: 10.1007/s11192-018-2906-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang L, Zhan Y. A conceptual peer review model for arXiv and other preprint databases. Learned Publishing. 2019; 32 (3):213–219. doi: 10.1002/leap.1229. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Watson JD, Crick FHC. Molecular structure of nucleic acids: A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature. 1953; 171 :737–738. doi: 10.1038/171737a0. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Brief Report

Brief reports should consist of focused (or highly innovative preliminary) reports of clinical interest. They may also be suitable for the presentation of research that extends previously published research, including the reporting of additional controls and confirmatory results in other settings, as well as negative results.

They can also be case reports provided they are not  “me too papers” describing conditions already well known, albeit exceptional, nor being the description of “curious cases”.

Authors must clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building, both published and unpublished. These articles should be no more than around 1500 words, up to two tables and 20 references may be included.

Critical Care strongly encourages that all datasets on which the conclusions of the paper rely should be available to readers. We encourage authors to ensure that their datasets are either deposited in publicly available repositories (where available and appropriate) or presented in the main manuscript or additional supporting files whenever possible. Please see Springer Nature’s information on recommended repositories.

Preparing your manuscript

The information below details the section headings that you should include in your manuscript and what information should be within each section.

Please note that your manuscript must include a 'Declarations' section including all of the subheadings (please see below for more information).

The title page should:

• "A versus B in the treatment of C: a randomized controlled trial", "X is a risk factor for Y: a case control study", "What is the impact of factor X on subject Y: A systematic review"
• or for non-clinical or non-research studies: a description of what the article reports
• if a collaboration group should be listed as an author, please list the group name as an author. If you would like the names of the individual members of the group to be searchable through their individual PubMed records, please include this information in the “Acknowledgements” section in accordance with the instructions below
• Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT , do not currently satisfy our authorship criteria . Notably an attribution of authorship carries with it accountability for the work, which cannot be effectively applied to LLMs. Use of an LLM should be properly documented in the Methods section (and if a Methods section is not available, in a suitable alternative part) of the manuscript
• indicate the corresponding author

Please minimize the use of abbreviations and do not cite references in the abstract. The abstract should briefly summarize the aim, findings or purpose of the article. The Abstract should not exceed 250 words.

Three to ten keywords representing the main content of the article.

This should contain the body of the article, and may also be broken into subsections with short, informative headings.

List of abbreviations

If abbreviations are used in the text they should be defined in the text at first use, and a list of abbreviations should be provided.

Declarations

All manuscripts must contain the following sections under the heading 'Declarations':

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Consent for publication, availability of data and materials, competing interests, authors' contributions, acknowledgements.

• Authors' information (optional)

Please see below for details on the information to be included in these sections.

If any of the sections are not relevant to your manuscript, please include the heading and write 'Not applicable' for that section. 

Manuscripts reporting studies involving human participants, human data or human tissue must:

• include a statement on ethics approval and consent (even where the need for approval was waived)
• include the name of the ethics committee that approved the study and the committee’s reference number if appropriate

Studies involving animals must include a statement on ethics approval and for experimental studies involving client-owned animals, authors must also include a statement on informed consent from the client or owner.

See our editorial policies for more information.

If your manuscript does not report on or involve the use of any animal or human data or tissue, please state “Not applicable” in this section.

If your manuscript contains any individual person’s data in any form (including any individual details, images or videos), consent for publication must be obtained from that person, or in the case of children, their parent or legal guardian. All presentations of case reports must have consent for publication.

You can use your institutional consent form or our consent form if you prefer. You should not send the form to us on submission, but we may request to see a copy at any stage (including after publication).

See our editorial policies for more information on consent for publication.

If your manuscript does not contain data from any individual person, please state “Not applicable” in this section.

All manuscripts must include an ‘Availability of data and materials’ statement. Data availability statements should include information on where data supporting the results reported in the article can be found including, where applicable, hyperlinks to publicly archived datasets analysed or generated during the study. By data we mean the minimal dataset that would be necessary to interpret, replicate and build upon the findings reported in the article. We recognise it is not always possible to share research data publicly, for instance when individual privacy could be compromised, and in such instances data availability should still be stated in the manuscript along with any conditions for access.

Authors are also encouraged to preserve search strings on searchRxiv https://searchrxiv.org/ , an archive to support researchers to report, store and share their searches consistently and to enable them to review and re-use existing searches. searchRxiv enables researchers to obtain a digital object identifier (DOI) for their search, allowing it to be cited. 

Data availability statements can take one of the following forms (or a combination of more than one if required for multiple datasets):

• The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available in the [NAME] repository, [PERSISTENT WEB LINK TO DATASETS]
• The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
• All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].
• The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due [REASON WHY DATA ARE NOT PUBLIC] but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
• Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
• The data that support the findings of this study are available from [third party name] but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of [third party name].
• Not applicable. If your manuscript does not contain any data, please state 'Not applicable' in this section.

More examples of template data availability statements, which include examples of openly available and restricted access datasets, are available here .

BioMed Central strongly encourages the citation of any publicly available data on which the conclusions of the paper rely in the manuscript. Data citations should include a persistent identifier (such as a DOI) and should ideally be included in the reference list. Citations of datasets, when they appear in the reference list, should include the minimum information recommended by DataCite and follow journal style. Dataset identifiers including DOIs should be expressed as full URLs. For example:

Hao Z, AghaKouchak A, Nakhjiri N, Farahmand A. Global integrated drought monitoring and prediction system (GIDMaPS) data sets. figshare. 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.853801

With the corresponding text in the Availability of data and materials statement:

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available in the [NAME] repository, [PERSISTENT WEB LINK TO DATASETS]. [Reference number]  

If you wish to co-submit a data note describing your data to be published in BMC Research Notes , you can do so by visiting our submission portal . Data notes support open data and help authors to comply with funder policies on data sharing. Co-published data notes will be linked to the research article the data support ( example ).

All financial and non-financial competing interests must be declared in this section.

See our editorial policies for a full explanation of competing interests. If you are unsure whether you or any of your co-authors have a competing interest please contact the editorial office.

Please use the authors initials to refer to each authors' competing interests in this section.

If you do not have any competing interests, please state "The authors declare that they have no competing interests" in this section.

All sources of funding for the research reported should be declared. If the funder has a specific role in the conceptualization, design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript, this should be declared.

The individual contributions of authors to the manuscript should be specified in this section. Guidance and criteria for authorship can be found in our editorial policies .

Please use initials to refer to each author's contribution in this section, for example: "FC analyzed and interpreted the patient data regarding the hematological disease and the transplant. RH performed the histological examination of the kidney, and was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript."

Please acknowledge anyone who contributed towards the article who does not meet the criteria for authorship including anyone who provided professional writing services or materials.

Authors should obtain permission to acknowledge from all those mentioned in the Acknowledgements section.

See our editorial policies for a full explanation of acknowledgements and authorship criteria.

If you do not have anyone to acknowledge, please write "Not applicable" in this section.

Group authorship (for manuscripts involving a collaboration group): if you would like the names of the individual members of a collaboration Group to be searchable through their individual PubMed records, please ensure that the title of the collaboration Group is included on the title page and in the submission system and also include collaborating author names as the last paragraph of the “Acknowledgements” section. Please add authors in the format First Name, Middle initial(s) (optional), Last Name. You can add institution or country information for each author if you wish, but this should be consistent across all authors.

Please note that individual names may not be present in the PubMed record at the time a published article is initially included in PubMed as it takes PubMed additional time to code this information.

Authors' information

This section is optional.

You may choose to use this section to include any relevant information about the author(s) that may aid the reader's interpretation of the article, and understand the standpoint of the author(s). This may include details about the authors' qualifications, current positions they hold at institutions or societies, or any other relevant background information. Please refer to authors using their initials. Note this section should not be used to describe any competing interests.

Footnotes can be used to give additional information, which may include the citation of a reference included in the reference list. They should not consist solely of a reference citation, and they should never include the bibliographic details of a reference. They should also not contain any figures or tables.

Footnotes to the text are numbered consecutively; those to tables should be indicated by superscript lower-case letters (or asterisks for significance values and other statistical data). Footnotes to the title or the authors of the article are not given reference symbols.

Always use footnotes instead of endnotes.

Examples of the Vancouver reference style are shown below.

See our editorial policies for author guidance on good citation practice

Web links and URLs: All web links and URLs, including links to the authors' own websites, should be given a reference number and included in the reference list rather than within the text of the manuscript. They should be provided in full, including both the title of the site and the URL, as well as the date the site was accessed, in the following format: The Mouse Tumor Biology Database. http://tumor.informatics.jax.org/mtbwi/index.do . Accessed 20 May 2013. If an author or group of authors can clearly be associated with a web link, such as for weblogs, then they should be included in the reference.

Example reference style:

Article within a journal

Smith JJ. The world of science. Am J Sci. 1999;36:234-5.

Article within a journal (no page numbers)

Rohrmann S, Overvad K, Bueno-de-Mesquita HB, Jakobsen MU, Egeberg R, Tjønneland A, et al. Meat consumption and mortality - results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. BMC Medicine. 2013;11:63.

Article within a journal by DOI

Slifka MK, Whitton JL. Clinical implications of dysregulated cytokine production. Dig J Mol Med. 2000; doi:10.1007/s801090000086.

Article within a journal supplement

Frumin AM, Nussbaum J, Esposito M. Functional asplenia: demonstration of splenic activity by bone marrow scan. Blood 1979;59 Suppl 1:26-32.

Book chapter, or an article within a book

Wyllie AH, Kerr JFR, Currie AR. Cell death: the significance of apoptosis. In: Bourne GH, Danielli JF, Jeon KW, editors. International review of cytology. London: Academic; 1980. p. 251-306.

OnlineFirst chapter in a series (without a volume designation but with a DOI)

Saito Y, Hyuga H. Rate equation approaches to amplification of enantiomeric excess and chiral symmetry breaking. Top Curr Chem. 2007. doi:10.1007/128_2006_108.

Complete book, authored

Blenkinsopp A, Paxton P. Symptoms in the pharmacy: a guide to the management of common illness. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 1998.

Online document

Doe J. Title of subordinate document. In: The dictionary of substances and their effects. Royal Society of Chemistry. 1999. http://www.rsc.org/dose/title of subordinate document. Accessed 15 Jan 1999.

Online database

Healthwise Knowledgebase. US Pharmacopeia, Rockville. 1998. http://www.healthwise.org. Accessed 21 Sept 1998.

Supplementary material/private homepage

Doe J. Title of supplementary material. 2000. http://www.privatehomepage.com. Accessed 22 Feb 2000.

University site

Doe, J: Title of preprint. http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/mydata.html (1999). Accessed 25 Dec 1999.

Doe, J: Trivial HTTP, RFC2169. ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2169.txt (1999). Accessed 12 Nov 1999.

Organization site

ISSN International Centre: The ISSN register. http://www.issn.org (2006). Accessed 20 Feb 2007.

Dataset with persistent identifier

Zheng L-Y, Guo X-S, He B, Sun L-J, Peng Y, Dong S-S, et al. Genome data from sweet and grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). GigaScience Database. 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.5524/100012 .

Figures, tables and additional files

See  General formatting guidelines  for information on how to format figures, tables and additional files.

Submit manuscript

• Editorial Board
• Manuscript editing services
• Instructions for Editors
• Sign up for article alerts and news from this journal
• Follow us on Twitter

Annual Journal Metrics

2022 Citation Impact 15.1 - 2-year Impact Factor 12.0 - 5-year Impact Factor 2.912 - SNIP (Source Normalized Impact per Paper) 3.577 - SJR (SCImago Journal Rank)

2023 Speed 6 days submission to first editorial decision for all manuscripts (Median) 51 days submission to accept (Median)

2023 Usage  8,478,308 downloads 31,789 Altmetric mentions

• More about our metrics

Critical Care

ISSN: 1364-8535

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]

• Submit your Research
• My Submissions
• Article Guidelines
• Article Guidelines (New Versions)
• Data Guidelines
• Article Processing Charges
• Finding Article Reviewers
• The Peer Review Process
• The Editorial Team’s Role
• Reviewer Criteria
• Dos and Don’ts for Suggesting Reviewers
• Hints and Tips for Finding Reviewers

Guidelines for Article Preparation for Submission

• Plain Language Summary (recommended)
• Data and Software Availability
• Reporting Guidelines (if applicable)
• Consent (if applicable)
• Author Contributions
• Competing Interests
• Grant Information
• Acknowledgments (optional)
• Supplementary Material
• Figures and Tables (if applicable)
• Images (if applicable)
• Special Characters (if applicable)
• complete the submission using your ORCID iD
• provide full affiliation information (full institutional address and ZIP code, and e-mail address) for all authors, and
• indicate who is/are the corresponding author(s).
• Introduction
• Conclusions/Discussion
• Data file 1. (Description of data.)
• Data file 2. (Description of data.)
• Abbreviations should align with discipline specific standards.
• Preprints can be cited and listed in the reference list.
• Unpublished abstracts, papers that have been submitted to a journal but not yet accepted, and personal communications should instead be included in the text; they should be referred to as ‘personal communications’ or ‘unpublished work’ and the researchers involved should be named. Authors are responsible for getting permission to quote any personal communications from the cited individuals.
• Web links, URLs, and links to the authors’ own websites should be included as hyperlinks within the main body of the article, and not as references.
• Datasets published or deposited elsewhere (for example, in a general repository) should be listed in the "References" section and the citation to the dataset should follow one of these examples .

Stay Informed

If you are funded by a Horizon 2020, Horizon Europe or Euratom grant, sign up for information about developments, publishing and publications from Open Research Europe.

For details on how your data are used and stored, see our privacy policy .

We'll keep you updated on any major new updates to Open Research Europe

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here .

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here .

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here .

If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.

If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.

Inside IES Research

Notes from ncer & ncser, on being brief: skills and supports for translating research to practice via brief reports.

Have you ever found yourself at a gathering fumbling to find the words to describe your academic work to family and friends? Do you find it difficult to communicate your scholarship to, and build partnerships with, non-researcher audiences? Are you an early career or seasoned researcher interested in disseminating research to practitioners, policymakers, or community members but struggling to find the best way to do so? Or are you a senior researcher mentoring a trainee through this process?

If your answer to any of these questions is “YES!”, then read on! Writing research briefs is an instrumental part of professional development but, for many researchers, not a formal aspect of training. Drawing on our experience writing research briefs, here are some tips for the challenging, but rewarding, process of translating your research into a brief.

Why Write a Brief?

Research briefs deliver the essence of research findings in a relatable manner to a non-researcher audience. Briefs can

• Broaden your research’s impact by disseminating findings to non-researcher audiences, including communities historically marginalized in research
• Strengthen university-community partnerships and relationships by transparently communicating with partners
• Facilitate future partnerships and employment through increased visibility

A research brief is a concise, non-technical summary of the key takeaways from a research study. Briefs communicate research insights to the public, thereby translating research and evidence-based practices into real-world settings.  

The focus of a brief varies depending on the intended audience., Provide explicit recommendations for practice if you want to reach a practitioner audience. Explore policy and infrastructure needs when writing for a policymaker audience.

Plan to share briefs in diverse settings. Share briefs with research partners (participating districts, schools, teachers), professional networks (at conference presentations), and broader audiences (on personal websites).

Lead researchers on our research team are part of a statewide partnership to support the dissemination of the Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports framework. This partnership involves researchers and representatives from the Maryland Department of Education, a large behavioral health organization, and all school districts within the state. Researchers regularly write and share briefs with the statewide group, taking into account evolving needs and interests. Check out some of the briefs here .

Briefs Should Be…

• Brief . Condensing a full-length manuscript into a two-page document is challenging. But doing so helps distill the study’s real-world implications and identify steps for future work. Two pages is optimal as it can be easily shared as a one-pager when printed.
• Accessible . Graduate-level coursework in statistics should not be required to understand a brief. The usual audience for briefs will not have the time or energy to absorb methodological details or nuanced theory. Write as if you were presenting to a family member or your favorite high school teacher.
• Visually appealing . A visual representation of an idea will capture attention better than text and help with brevity. Your paper likely already has some type of visual (for example, a logic model) that you can tweak. If not, pull from your visual-making skills you have already honed when creating posters and conference presentations! This process may have you re-thinking how you visually present your research, even in peer-reviewed publications.
• A team effort. Individuals bring diverse skills and strengths to the research team. The study’s lead author may be able to articulate results, but a co-author may have the vision to creatively illustrate these findings in a figure. Make use of each member’s skills by making brief-writing an iterative, team effort.
• Tailored to your audience. If you are developing a brief for a specific audience, ensure that key takeaways and recommendations are relevant and actionable. In some cases, you may have a more technical audience to whom you may present the data more formally. In our own experience, district partners have sometimes asked for more numbers and statistics.

Training in doctoral programs, which often encourages lengthy, detail-oriented writing, runs counter to the skills inherent in writing research briefs. While certain programs offer training for writing for non-academic audiences, we advocate for a greater focus on this skill during graduate training. All of the post-doctoral authors of this blog got their first exposure to writing research briefs on this research team. Inspired by our own on-the-job training, we provide the following recommendations for mentors:  

• Frame writing the brief as an opportunity. Briefs may feel tangential to the graduate student research mission and challenging to existing skillsets. Thus, the process should be framed as an opportunity to develop an integral set of skills to advance professional development. This will help with motivation as well as execution.
• Provide a template for the brief that can be easily tweaked and tailored, so that graduate students have a model for the finished product, minimizing formatting issues. Publisher and Word have visually appealing templates for flyers that can be easily populated and organizations that publish briefs may provide templates and layouts. 
• Know your audience and their interest in the work. The audience should be well-defined (for practitioners, policy makers, or other researchers) and their perspective and interests well-understood. Although knowledge of the audience could come from prior work experience, direct communication with the audience is desirable to gain a firm grasp on their lived experience. If direct interaction is not feasible, mentors should “think aloud” to mentees about which details, words, and images would be most effective and appealing for this audience.  
• Early scaffolding should be followed by continued support . After being a co-author on a brief, a graduate student can transition to writing their own brief. They may still need support to complete this task autonomously, with continued feedback from mentors and co-authors.
• University-based or paid workshops for students and early career faculty focused on writing for non-academic audiences
• Opportunities to interface directly with practitioners

Concluding Thoughts

Writing research briefs is a key translational activity for educational researchers, but for many, requires skills not cultivated in formal training. Our research team has embarked on the journey of developing and sharing research briefs regularly over the past few years. This is an evolving and rewarding process for all of us. We hope this post has provided some helpful information as you continue your journey to be brief !

Summer S. Braun is a postdoctoral research associate at YouthNex at the University of Virginia’s School of Education and Human Development. She will be joining the Psychology Department at the University of Alabama as an Assistant Professor.

Daniel A. Camacho is a Licensed Clinical Psychologist and a postdoctoral research associate at the University of Virginia School of Education and Human Development.

Chelsea A.K. Duran is a postdoctoral research associate at the University of Virginia School of Education and Human Development in Youth-Nex: The UVA Center to Promote Effective Youth Development. She will be starting a position with the University of Minnesota in the summer of 2021.

Lora J. Henderson is a Licensed Clinical Psychologist and postdoctoral research associate at the University of Virginia who will soon be starting as an assistant professor in the Department of Graduate Psychology at James Madison University.

Elise T. Pas is an Associate Scientist (research faculty) at the Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health.

*Note: Authors are listed alphabetically and contributed equally to the preparation of this post.

Related posts

• The ED Games Expo “Goes Virtual” to Support Distance Learning Each year, the U.S. Department of Education hosts the ED Games Expo, an in-person event to showcase
• On Being Brief: Skills and Supports for Translating Research to Practice via Brief Reports Have you ever found yourself at a gathering fumbling to find the words to describe your academic wor
• Research To Accelerate Pandemic Recovery in Special Education: Grantee Spotlight Blog Series Featuring Dr. Alyson Collins Today, we would like to introduce Dr. Alyson Collins, associate professor of special education at Te

Comparison of number of citations to full original articles versus brief reports

• Published: 25 April 2012
• Volume 94 , pages 203–206, ( 2013 )

Cite this article

• Michael N. Mavros 1 ,
• Vangelis Bardakas 2 ,
• Petros I. Rafailidis 1 , 3 ,
• Thalia A. Sardi 1 ,
• Elena Demetriou 2 &
• Matthew E. Falagas 1 , 3 , 4  

475 Accesses

8 Citations

Explore all metrics

Most biomedical journals accept original research articles in the form of “brief reports”. We compared the citations to full papers versus brief reports in a sample of journals on Infectious Diseases, Clinical Microbiology, and Antimicrobial Agents. Brief reports were cited less often than full-size articles [regression coefficient: 10.94 (95 % CI: 5.19, 16.69)] even after adjustment for the journal’s impact factor. Our findings may influence decisions of editors and authors regarding brief reports.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA) Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

A scoping review of comparisons between abstracts and full reports in primary biomedical research.

LOCATE: a prospective evaluation of the value of Leveraging Ongoing Citation Acquisition Techniques for living Evidence syntheses

Do citation trends reflect epidemiologic patterns assessing mrsa, emerging and re-emerging pathogens, 1963–2014.

Ball, P. (2008). A longer paper gathers more citations. Nature, 455 , 274–275.

Article   Google Scholar  

Falagas, M. E., & Alexiou, V. G. (2008). The top-ten in journal impact factor manipulation. Archivum immunolgiae et therapiae experimentalis, 56 , 223–226.

Joseph, K. S., & Hoey, J. (1999). Research letters in CMAJ. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 160 , 825.

Google Scholar  

Lokker, C., McKibbon, K. A., McKinlay, R. J., Wilczynski, N. L., & Haynes, R. B. (2008). Prediction of citation counts for clinical articles at two years using data available within three weeks of publication: retrospective cohort study. British Medical Journal, 336 , 655–657.

Magalhaes, P. V. (2010). Most reports should be brief reports. Academic Medicine, 85 , 1104.

McVeigh, M. E., & Mann, S. J. (2009). The journal impact factor denominator: defining citable (counted) items. Journal of the American Medical Association, 302 , 1107–1109.

Neill, U. S. (2010). Let’s keep this brief. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 120 , 2.

Download references

Conflict of interest

Author information, authors and affiliations.

Alfa Institute of Biomedical Sciences (AIBS), 9 Neapoleos Street, Marousi, 151 23, Athens, Greece

Michael N. Mavros, Petros I. Rafailidis, Thalia A. Sardi & Matthew E. Falagas

Department of Applied Mathematics and Physics, National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece

Vangelis Bardakas & Elena Demetriou

Department of Medicine, Henry Dunant Hospital, Athens, Greece

Petros I. Rafailidis & Matthew E. Falagas

Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA

Matthew E. Falagas

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew E. Falagas .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Mavros, M.N., Bardakas, V., Rafailidis, P.I. et al. Comparison of number of citations to full original articles versus brief reports. Scientometrics 94 , 203–206 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0752-3

Download citation

Received : 18 January 2012

Published : 25 April 2012

Issue Date : January 2013

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0752-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Original articles
• Brief reports
• Infectious diseases
• Antimicrobial agents
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Submit your Research
• My Submissions
• Article Guidelines
• Article Guidelines (New Versions)
• Data Guidelines
• Posters and Slides Guidelines
• Document Guidelines
• Article Processing Charges
• Peer Review
• The Peer Review Process
• The Editorial Team’s Role
• Understanding Peer Review Reports and Statuses
• Revising and Responding to Reviewers
• Finding Article Reviewers
• Reviewer Criteria
• Hints and Tips for Finding Reviewers
• Dos and Don’ts for Suggesting Reviewers

Guidelines for Article Preparation for Submission

• Data and Software Availability
• Reporting Guidelines
• Ethics and Consent
• Author Contributions
• Competing Interests
• Grant Information
• Acknowledgments
• Supplementary Material
• References and footnotes
• Figures and Tables
• Units, Symbols and Mathematical Scripts
• Authors’ Role in the Peer Review Process
• Introduction
• Conclusions/Discussion
• Initial ace validity testing
• Preliminary pilot testing
• Reliability testing (internal consistency, test-retest, inter-rater)
• Any changes implemented resulting from preliminary testing
• Title of file. (Description of data in file).
• Data file 1. Datasets.xlsx
• Title of file. (Description of data in file.)
• Software available from: URL for the website where software can be downloaded from, if applicable.
• Source code available from: URL for versioning control system (for example GitHub).
• Archived source code at time of publication: DOI and citation for project in Zenodo (please select the appropriate DOI for the version which underlies your article).
• License: Must be an open license and preferably an OSI-approved license .
• Randomized controlled trials ( CONSORT )
• Observational studies ( STROBE )
• Qualitative research ( COREQ ; SRQR )
• In vivo animal studies ( ARRIVE )
• Authors should ensure that the terms sex and gender are used correctly throughout the article.
• Title/abstract : it should be clear if the results can only be applied to one sex or gender.
• Introduction : if sex and gender differences are expected in the results, these should be stated.
• if sex and gender differences were taken into consideration for the design of the study these should be stated. If they were not taken into consideration, the rationale should be given.
• explanation of how sex of participants was defined should be stated, either based on self-report, assigned following external or internal examination of body characteristics, or through genetic testing or other means.
• Results : data should be presented disaggregated by sex and gender.
• Discussion : implications of sex and gender differences in the results should be discussed. If sex or gender analysis was not conducted, the rationale should be given.
• Abbreviations and journal names should align with discipline specific standards.
• Preprints can be cited and listed in the reference list.
• Unpublished abstracts, papers that have been submitted to a journal but not yet accepted, and personal communications should instead be included in the text; they should be referred to as ‘personal communications’ or ‘unpublished work’ and the researchers involved should be named. Authors are responsible for getting permission to quote any personal communications from the cited individuals.
• Web links should be included as hyperlinks within the main body of the article, and not as references.
• Datasets published or deposited elsewhere (for example, in a general repository) should be listed in the “References” section and the citation to the dataset should follow one of these examples .
• Special care should be taken with mathematical scripts, especially subscripts and superscripts and differentiation between the letter “ell” and the figure one, and the letter “oh” and the figure zero.
• It is important to differentiate between mathematical symbols and letters to ensure that these are consistent throughout. Regardless of which symbol you use to represent which constant or unknown (e.g. K could be Kelvin, Kinetic energy, spring constant or a number of others), please make sure the formatting, such as roman or italic, and capitalization of the symbol is consistent throughout and only used to represent ONE constant or unknown for example: C (heat capacity) and c (speed of light); K and k; X, x and × (multiplication) etc.
• In both displayed equations and in text, scalar variables must be in italics, with non-variable matter in upright type.
• For simple fractions in the text, the solidus “/” should be used instead of a horizontal line, care being taken to insert parentheses where necessary to avoid ambiguity. Exceptions are the proper fractions available (e.g., ¼, ½, ¾).
• The solidus is not generally used for units (e.g. m s⁻¹ not m/s). But note can be where convention stipulates electrons/s, counts/channel, etc.
• Displayed equations referred to in the text should be numbered serially ((1), (2), etc.) on the right-hand side. Short expressions not referred to by any number will usually be incorporated into the text.
• The following styles are preferred: roman bold sans serif r for tensors, bold serif italic r for vectors, roman bold serif r for matrices, and medium-weight italic serif r for scalar variables. In mathematical expressions, the use of “d” for differential should be made clear, and coded in roman, not italic. i.e. use the equation function in Word.
• Braces, brackets, and parentheses are used in the order {[( )] }, except where mathematical convention dictates otherwise (e.g., square brackets for commutators and anticommutators; braces for the exponent in exponentials).
• For units and symbols, the SI system should be used. Where measurements are given in other systems, please insert conversions.
• The key with mathematical symbols and expressions is to ensure consistency above all else throughout the document.

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here .

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here .

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here .

If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.

If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.

• Richard G. Trefry Library

Q. What's the difference between a research article (or research study) and a review article?

• Course-Specific
• Textbooks & Course Materials
• Tutoring & Classroom Help
• Writing & Citing
• 44 Articles & Journals
• 11 Capstone/Thesis/Dissertation Research
• 37 Databases
• 56 Information Literacy
• 9 Interlibrary Loan
• 9 Need help getting started?
• 22 Technical Help

Answered By: Priscilla Coulter Last Updated: Jul 29, 2022     Views: 231516

A research paper is a primary source ...that is, it reports the methods and results of an original study performed by the authors . The kind of study may vary (it could have been an experiment, survey, interview, etc.), but in all cases, raw data have been collected and analyzed by the authors , and conclusions drawn from the results of that analysis.

Research papers follow a particular format.  Look for:

• A brief introduction will often include a review of the existing literature on the topic studied, and explain the rationale of the author's study.  This is important because it demonstrates that the authors are aware of existing studies, and are planning to contribute to this existing body of research in a meaningful way (that is, they're not just doing what others have already done).
• A methods section, where authors describe how they collected and analyzed data.  Statistical analyses are included.  This section is quite detailed, as it's important that other researchers be able to verify and/or replicate these methods.
• A results section describes the outcomes of the data analysis.  Charts and graphs illustrating the results are typically included.
• In the discussion , authors will explain their interpretation of their results and theorize on their importance to existing and future research.
• References or works cited are always included.  These are the articles and books that the authors drew upon to plan their study and to support their discussion.

You can use the library's article databases to search for research articles:

• A research article will nearly always be published in a peer-reviewed journal; click here for instructions on limiting your searches to peer-reviewed articles.  
• If you have a particular type of study in mind, you can include keywords to describe it in your search .  For instance, if you would like to see studies that used surveys to collect data, you can add "survey" to your topic in the database's search box. See this example search in our EBSCO databases: " bullying and survey ".   
• Several of our databases have special limiting options that allow you to select specific methodologies.  See, for instance, the " Methodology " box in ProQuest's PsycARTICLES Advanced Search (scroll down a bit to see it).  It includes options like "Empirical Study" and "Qualitative Study", among many others.  

A review article is a secondary source ...it is written about other articles, and does not report original research of its own.  Review articles are very important, as they draw upon the articles that they review to suggest new research directions, to strengthen support for existing theories and/or identify patterns among exising research studies.  For student researchers, review articles provide a great overview of the existing literature on a topic.    If you find a literature review that fits your topic, take a look at its references/works cited list for leads on other relevant articles and books!

You can use the library's article databases to find literature reviews as well!  Click here for tips.

• Share on Facebook

Was this helpful? Yes 7 No 0

Related Topics

• Articles & Journals
• Information Literacy

Need personalized help? Librarians are available 365 days/nights per year!  See our schedule.

Learn more about how librarians can help you succeed.    

The independent source for health policy research, polling, and news.

A New Use for Wegovy Opens the Door to Medicare Coverage for Millions of People with Obesity

Juliette Cubanski , Tricia Neuman , Nolan Sroczynski , and Anthony Damico Published: Apr 24, 2024

The FDA recently approved a new use for Wegovy (semaglutide), the blockbuster anti-obesity drug, to reduce the risk of heart attacks and stroke in people with cardiovascular disease who are overweight or obese. Wegovy belongs to a class of medications called GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide-1) agonists that were initially approved to treat type 2 diabetes but are also highly effective anti-obesity drugs. The new FDA-approved indication for Wegovy paves the way for Medicare coverage of this drug and broader coverage by other insurers. Medicare is currently prohibited by law from covering Wegovy and other medications when used specifically for obesity. However, semaglutide is covered by Medicare as a treatment for diabetes, branded as Ozempic.

What does the FDA’s decision mean for Medicare coverage of Wegovy?

The FDA’s decision opens the door to Medicare coverage of Wegovy, which was first approved by the FDA as an anti-obesity medication. Soon after the FDA’s approval of the new use for Wegovy, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a memo indicating that Medicare Part D plans can add Wegovy to their formularies now that it has a medically-accepted indication that is not specifically excluded from Medicare coverage . Because Wegovy is a self-administered injectable drug, coverage will be provided under Part D , Medicare’s outpatient drug benefit offered by private stand-alone drug plans and Medicare Advantage plans, not Part B, which covers physician-administered drugs.

How many Medicare beneficiaries could be eligible for coverage of Wegovy for its new use?

Of these 3.6 million beneficiaries, 1.9 million also had diabetes (other than Type 1) and may already have been eligible for Medicare coverage of GLP-1s as diabetes treatments prior to the FDA’s approval of the new use of Wegovy.

Not all people who are eligible based on the new indication are likely to take Wegovy, however. Some might be dissuaded by the potential side effects and adverse reactions . Out-of-pocket costs could also be a barrier. Based on the list price of $1,300 per month (not including rebates or other discounts negotiated by pharmacy benefit managers), Wegovy could be covered as a specialty tier drug, where Part D plans are allowed to charge coinsurance of 25% to 33%. Because coinsurance amounts are pegged to the list price, Medicare beneficiaries required to pay coinsurance could face monthly costs of $325 to $430 before they reach the new cap on annual out-of-pocket drug spending established by the Inflation Reduction Act – around $3,300 in 2024, based on brand drugs only, and $2,000 in 2025. But even paying $2,000 out of pocket would still be beyond the reach of many people with Medicare who live on modest incomes . Ultimately, how much beneficiaries pay out of pocket will depend on Part D plan coverage and formulary tier placement of Wegovy.

Further, some people may have difficulty accessing Wegovy if Part D plans apply prior authorization and step therapy tools to manage costs and ensure appropriate use. These factors could have a dampening effect on use by Medicare beneficiaries, even among the target population.

When will Medicare Part D plans begin covering Wegovy?

Some Part D plans have already announced that they will begin covering Wegovy this year, although it is not yet clear how widespread coverage will be in 2024. While Medicare drug plans can add new drugs to their formularies during the year to reflect new approvals and expanded indications, plans are not required to cover every new drug that comes to market. Part D plans are required to cover at least two drugs in each category or class and all or substantially all drugs in six protected classes . However, facing a relatively high price and potentially large patient population for Wegovy, many Part D plans might be reluctant to expand coverage now, since they can’t adjust their premiums mid-year to account for higher costs associated with use of this drug. So, broader coverage in 2025 could be more likely.

How might expanded coverage of Wegovy affect Medicare spending?

The impact on Medicare spending associated with expanded coverage of Wegovy will depend in part on how many Part D plans add coverage for it and the extent to which plans apply restrictions on use like prior authorization; how many people who qualify to take the drug use it; and negotiated prices paid by plans. For example, if plans receive a 50% rebate on the list price of $1,300 per month (or $15,600 per year), that could mean annual net costs per person around $7,800. If 10% of the target population (an estimated 360,000 people) uses Wegovy for a full year, that would amount to additional net Medicare Part D spending of $2.8 billion for one year for this one drug alone.

It’s possible that Medicare could select semaglutide for drug price negotiation as early as 2025, based on the earliest FDA approval of Ozempic in late 2017 . For small-molecule drugs like semaglutide, at least seven years must have passed from its FDA approval date to be eligible for selection, and for drugs with multiple FDA approvals, CMS will use the earliest approval date to make this determination. If semaglutide is selected for negotiation next year, a negotiated price would be available beginning in 2027. This could help to lower Medicare and out-of-pocket spending on semaglutide products, including Wegovy as well as Ozempic and Rybelsus, the oral formulation approved for type 2 diabetes. As of 2022, gross Medicare spending on Ozempic alone placed it sixth among the 10 top-selling drugs in Medicare Part D, with annual gross spending of $4.6 billion, based on KFF analysis . This estimate does not include rebates, which Medicare’s actuaries estimated to be  31.5% overall in 2022  but could be as high as  69%  for Ozempic, according to one estimate.

What does this mean for Medicare coverage of anti-obesity drugs?

For now, use of GLP-1s specifically for obesity continues to be excluded from Medicare coverage by law. But the FDA’s decision signals a turning point for broader Medicare coverage of GLP-1s since Wegovy can now be used to reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke by people with cardiovascular disease and obesity or overweight, and not only as an anti-obesity drug. And more pathways to Medicare coverage could open up if these drugs gain FDA approval for other uses . For example, Eli Lilly has just reported clinical trial results showing the benefits of its GLP-1, Zepbound (tirzepatide), in reducing the occurrence of sleep apnea events among people with obesity or overweight. Lilly reportedly plans to seek FDA approval for this use and if approved, the drug would be the first pharmaceutical treatment on the market for sleep apnea.

If more Medicare beneficiaries with obesity or overweight gain access to GLP-1s based on other approved uses for these medications, that could reduce the cost of proposed legislation to lift the statutory prohibition on Medicare coverage of anti-obesity drugs. This is because the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Congress’s official scorekeeper for proposed legislation, would incorporate the cost of coverage for these other uses into its baseline estimates for Medicare spending, which means that the incremental cost of changing the law to allow Medicare coverage for anti-obesity drugs would be lower than it would be without FDA’s approval of these drugs for other uses. Ultimately how widely Medicare Part D coverage of GLP-1s expands could have far-reaching effects on people with obesity and on Medicare spending.

• Medicare Part D
• Chronic Diseases
• Heart Disease
• Medicare Advantage

news release

• An Estimated 1 in 4 Medicare Beneficiaries With Obesity or Overweight Could Be Eligible for Medicare Coverage of Wegovy, an Anti-Obesity Drug, to Reduce Heart Risk

Also of Interest

• An Overview of the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Benefit
• FAQs about the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program
• What Could New Anti-Obesity Drugs Mean for Medicare?
• Medicare Spending on Ozempic and Other GLP-1s Is Skyrocketing

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

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.

Take action

• Report an antitrust violation
• File adjudicative documents
• Find banned debt collectors
• View competition guidance
• Competition Matters Blog

New HSR thresholds and filing fees for 2024

View all Competition Matters Blog posts

We work to advance government policies that protect consumers and promote competition.

View Policy

Search or browse the Legal Library

Find legal resources and guidance to understand your business responsibilities and comply with the law.

Browse legal resources

• Find policy statements
• Submit a public comment

Vision and Priorities

Memo from Chair Lina M. Khan to commission staff and commissioners regarding the vision and priorities for the FTC.

Technology Blog

Consumer facing applications: a quote book from the tech summit on ai.

View all Technology Blog posts

Advice and Guidance

Learn more about your rights as a consumer and how to spot and avoid scams. Find the resources you need to understand how consumer protection law impacts your business.

• Report fraud
• Report identity theft
• Register for Do Not Call
• Sign up for consumer alerts
• Get Business Blog updates
• Get your free credit report
• Find refund cases
• Order bulk publications
• Consumer Advice
• Shopping and Donating
• Credit, Loans, and Debt
• Jobs and Making Money
• Unwanted Calls, Emails, and Texts
• Identity Theft and Online Security
• Business Guidance
• Advertising and Marketing
• Credit and Finance
• Privacy and Security
• By Industry
• For Small Businesses
• Browse Business Guidance Resources
• Business Blog

Servicemembers: Your tool for financial readiness

Visit militaryconsumer.gov

Get consumer protection basics, plain and simple

Visit consumer.gov

Learn how the FTC protects free enterprise and consumers

Visit Competition Counts

Looking for competition guidance?

• Competition Guidance

News and Events

Latest news, razer, inc. to pay more than $1.1 million for misrepresenting the performance and efficacy of supposed “n95-grade” zephyr face masks.

View News and Events

Upcoming Event

Older adults and fraud: what you need to know.

View more Events

Sign up for the latest news

Follow us on social media

-->   -->   -->   -->   -->  

Playing it Safe: Explore the FTC's Top Video Game Cases

Learn about the FTC's notable video game cases and what our agency is doing to keep the public safe.

Latest Data Visualization

FTC Refunds to Consumers

Explore refund statistics including where refunds were sent and the dollar amounts refunded with this visualization.

About the FTC

Our mission is protecting the public from deceptive or unfair business practices and from unfair methods of competition through law enforcement, advocacy, research, and education.

Learn more about the FTC

Meet the Chair

Lina M. Khan was sworn in as Chair of the Federal Trade Commission on June 15, 2021.

Chair Lina M. Khan

Looking for legal documents or records? Search the Legal Library instead.

• Cases and Proceedings
• Premerger Notification Program
• Merger Review
• Anticompetitive Practices
• Competition and Consumer Protection Guidance Documents
• Warning Letters
• Consumer Sentinel Network
• Criminal Liaison Unit
• FTC Refund Programs
• Notices of Penalty Offenses
• Advocacy and Research
• Advisory Opinions
• Cooperation Agreements
• Federal Register Notices
• Public Comments
• Policy Statements
• International
• Office of Technology Blog
• Military Consumer
• Consumer.gov
• Bulk Publications
• Data and Visualizations
• Stay Connected
• Commissioners and Staff
• Bureaus and Offices
• Budget and Strategy
• Office of Inspector General
• Careers at the FTC

Fact Sheet on FTC’s Proposed Final Noncompete Rule

• Competition
• Office of Policy Planning
• Bureau of Competition

The following outline provides a high-level overview of the FTC’s proposed final rule :

• Specifically, the final rule provides that it is an unfair method of competition—and therefore a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act—for employers to enter into noncompetes with workers after the effective date.
• Fewer than 1% of workers are estimated to be senior executives under the final rule.
• Specifically, the final rule defines the term “senior executive” to refer to workers earning more than $151,164 annually who are in a “policy-making position.”
• Reduced health care costs: $74-$194 billion in reduced spending on physician services over the next decade.
• New business formation: 2.7% increase in the rate of new firm formation, resulting in over 8,500 additional new businesses created each year.
• This reflects an estimated increase of about 3,000 to 5,000 new patents in the first year noncompetes are banned, rising to about 30,000-53,000 in the tenth year.
• This represents an estimated increase of 11-19% annually over a ten-year period.
• The average worker’s earnings will rise an estimated extra $524 per year. 

The Federal Trade Commission develops policy initiatives on issues that affect competition, consumers, and the U.S. economy. The FTC will never demand money, make threats, tell you to transfer money, or promise you a prize. Follow the  FTC on social media , read  consumer alerts  and the  business blog , and  sign up to get the latest FTC news and alerts .

Press Release Reference

Contact information, media contact.

Victoria Graham Office of Public Affairs 415-848-5121

Poll: Election interest hits new low in tight Biden-Trump race

The share of voters who say they have high interest in the 2024 election has hit a nearly 20-year low at this point in a presidential race, according to the latest national NBC News poll , with majorities holding negative views of both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump.

The poll also shows Biden trimming Trump’s previous lead to just 2 points in a head-to-head contest, an improvement within the margin of error compared to the previous survey, as Biden bests Trump on the issues of abortion and uniting the country, while Trump is ahead on competency and dealing with inflation.

And it finds inflation and immigration topping the list of most important issues facing the country, as just one-third of voters give Biden credit for an improving economy.

But what also stands out in the survey is how the low voter interest and the independent candidacy of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. could scramble what has been a stable presidential contest with more than six months until Election Day. While Trump holds a 2-point edge over Biden head to head, Biden leads Trump by 2 points in a five-way ballot test including Kennedy and other third-party candidates.

“I don’t think Biden has done much as a president. And if Trump gets elected, I just feel like it’s going to be the same thing as it was before Biden got elected,” said poll respondent Devin Fletcher, 37, of Wayne, Michigan, a Democrat who said he’s still voting for Biden.

“I just don’t feel like I have a candidate that I’m excited to vote for,” Fletcher added.

Another poll respondent from New Jersey, who declined to provide her name and voted for Biden in 2020, said she wouldn’t be voting in November.

“Our candidates are horrible. I have no interest in voting for Biden. He did nothing. And I absolutely will not vote for Trump,” she said.

Democratic pollster Jeff Horwitt of Hart Research Associates, who conducted the survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff of Public Opinion Strategies, said, “Americans don’t agree on much these days, but nothing unites the country more than voters’ desire to tune this election out.”

The poll was conducted April 12-16, during yet another turbulent time in American politics, including the  beginning of Trump’s criminal trial  in New York and new attacks and heightened tensions  in the Middle East.

According to the poll, 64% of registered voters say they have high levels of interest in November’s election — registering either a “9” or a 10” on a 10-point scale of interest.

That’s lower than what the NBC News poll showed at this time in the 2008 (74%), 2012 (67%), 2016 (69%) and 2020 (77%) presidential contests.

The question dates to the 2008 election cycle. The lowest level of high election interest in the poll during a presidential cycle was in March 2012 — at 59%. But it quickly ticked up in the next survey.

This election cycle, high interest has been both low and relatively flat for months, according to the poll.

McInturff, the Republican pollster, says the high level of interest in the poll has “always been a signal for the level of turnout” for a presidential contest.

“It makes it very hard for us to predict turnout this far in advance of November, but every signal is turnout will be a lower percentage of eligible voters than in 2020,” he said.

By party, the current poll shows 70% of self-identified Republicans saying they have high interest in the coming election, compared with 65% of Democrats who say so.

Independents are at 48%, while only 36% of voters ages 18 to 34 rate themselves as highly interested in the election.

“They just aren’t low interest,” McInturff said of young voters. “They are off-the-charts low.”

NBC News poll: Frequently asked questions

Professional pollsters at a Democratic polling firm (Hart Research Associates) and a Republican firm (Public Opinion Strategies) have worked together to conduct and operate this poll since 1989. (Coldwater Corporation served as the Republican firm from 1989-2004.)

The polling firms employ a call center, where live interviewers speak by cell phone and telephone with a cross section of (usually) 1,000 respondents. The respondents are randomly selected from national lists of households and cell numbers. Respondents are asked for by name, starting with the youngest male adult or female adult in the household.

One of the common questions that critics ask of polls is, "I wasn't interviewed, so why should this poll matter?” By interviewing 1,000 respondents and applying minimal weights based on race, ethnicity, age, gender, education and the 2020 presidential vote, the poll achieves a representative sample of the nation at large – with a margin of error at a 95% confidence level.

NBC News editors and reporters — along with the pollsters at Hart Research and Public Opinion Strategies — all work to formulate the questions to try to capture the news and current events NBC is trying to gauge. Both Hart Research and Public Opinion Strategies work to ensure the language and placement of the questions are as neutral as possible.

Biden trims Trump’s lead

The poll also finds Trump narrowly ahead of Biden by 2 points among registered voters in a head-to-head matchup, 46% to 44% — down from Trump’s 5-point advantage in January, 47% to 42%.

The movement, which is within the poll’s margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, is consistent with what other national polls have found in the Trump-Biden race.

Trump’s biggest advantages are among men (53% to 37%), white voters (54% to 37%) and white voters without college degrees (65% to 25%).

Biden’s top advantages are among Black voters (71% to 13%), women (50% to 39%) and Latinos (49% to 39%).

The poll shows the two candidates are essentially tied among independents (Biden 36%, Trump 34%) and voters ages 18-34 (Biden 44%, Trump 43%). One of the big polling mysteries this cycle is whether young voters have defected from Biden (as the NBC News poll has found over multiple surveys) or whether Democrats have maintained their advantage among that demographic.

When the ballot is expanded to five named candidates, Biden takes a 2-point lead over Trump: Biden 39%, Trump 37%, Kennedy 13%, Jill Stein 3% and Cornel West 2%.

Again, the result between Biden and Trump is within the poll’s margin of error.

Notably, the poll finds a greater share of Trump voters from the head-to-head matchup supporting Kennedy in the expanded ballot compared with Biden voters, different from the results of some other surveys.

(Read more here about how Kennedy's candidacy affe cts the 2024 race, according to the poll.)

The president’s approval rating ticks up to 42%

In addition, the poll found 42% of registered voters approving of Biden’s overall job performance — up 5 points since January’s NBC News poll, which found Biden at the lowest point of his presidency.

Fifty-six percent of voters say they disapprove of the job he has done, which is down 4 points from January.

Biden’s gains over the past few months have come from key parts of his 2020   base, especially among Democrats and Black voters. But he continues to hold low ratings among Latinos (40% approval), young voters (37%) and independents (36%).

“The data across this poll show that Joe Biden has begun to gain some ground in rebuilding his coalition from 2020,” said Horwitt, the Democratic pollster. “The question is whether he can build upon this momentum and make inroads with the groups of voters that still are holding back support.”

But McInturff, the GOP pollster, points out that the only recent presidents   who lost re-election had approval ratings higher than Biden’s at this point in the election cycle: George H.W. Bush (43%) and Trump (46%).

“President Biden has a precarious hold on the presidency and is in a difficult position as it relates to his re-election,” McInturff said.

On the issues, 39% of voters say they approve of Biden’s handling of the economy (up from 36% in January), 28% approve of his handling of border security and immigration, and just 27% approve of his handling of the Israel-Hamas war (down from 29% in January).

Voters gave Biden his highest issue rating on   addressing student loan debt, with 44% approving of his handling of the issue, compared with 51% who say they disapprove.

Biden leads on abortion and unity; Trump leads on inflation and competency

The NBC News poll asked voters to determine which candidate they thought is better on several different issues and attributes.

Biden holds a 15-point advantage over Trump on dealing with the issue of abortion, and he is ahead by 9 points on having the ability to bring the country together — though that is down from his 24-point advantage on that issue in the September 2020 NBC News poll.

Trump, meanwhile, leads in having the ability to handle a crisis (by 4 points), in having a strong record of accomplishments (by 7 points), in being competent and effective (by 11 points), in having the necessary mental and physical health to be president (by 19 points) and in dealing with inflation and the cost of living (by 22 points).

Inflation, immigration are the top 2024 issues

Inflation and the cost of living top the list of issues in the poll, with 23% of voters saying they’re the most important issue facing the country.

The other top voters is   immigration and the situation at the border (22%) — followed by   threats to democracy (16%), jobs and the economy (11%), abortion (6%) and health care (6%).

In addition, 63% of voters say their families’ incomes are falling behind the cost of living — essentially unchanged from what the poll found in 2022 and 2023.

And 53% of voters say the country’s economy hasn’t improved, compared with 33% who say that it has improved and that Biden deserves some credit for it and another 8% who agree the economy has improved but don’t give him credit for it.

“If I look back to when I had all three of my children in the house — we only have one child left in the house now, and we’re spending more now than what we did when we had a family of five,” said poll respondent Art Fales, 45, of Florida, who says he’s most likely voting for Trump.

But on a separate question — is there an issue so important that you’ll vote for or against a candidate solely on that basis? — the top responses are protecting democracy and constitutional rights (28%), immigration and border security (20%) and abortion (19%).

Indeed, 30% of Democrats, 29% of young voters and 27% of women say they are single-issue voters on abortion.

“I have a right to what I do with my body,” said poll respondent Amanda Willis, 28, of Louisiana, who said she’s voting for Biden. “And I don’t believe that other people should have the ability to determine that.”

Other poll findings

• With Trump’s first criminal trial underway, 50% of voters say he is being held to the same standard as anyone else when it comes to his multiple legal challenges. That compares with 43% who believe he’s being unfairly targeted in the trials. 
• 52% of voters have unfavorable views of Biden, while 53% share the same views of Trump.
• And Democrats and Republicans are essentially tied in congressional preference, with 47% of voters preferring Republicans to control Congress and 46% wanting Democrats in charge. Republicans held a 4-point lead on this question in January.

The NBC News poll of 1,000 registered voters nationwide — 891 contacted via cellphone — was conducted April 12-16, and it has an overall margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

Mark Murray is a senior political editor at NBC News.

Sarah Dean is a 2024 NBC News campaign embed.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

What Are Americans’ Top Foreign Policy Priorities?

Protecting the u.s. from terrorism and reducing the flow of illegal drugs are top issues overall, but democrats and republicans have very different priorities, table of contents.

• Differences by partisanship
• Differences by age
• Acknowledgments
• The American Trends Panel survey methodology

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to better understand Americans’ long-range foreign policy priorities. For this analysis, we surveyed 3,600 U.S. adults from April 1 to April 7, 2024. Everyone who took part in this survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used for this analysis, along with responses, and its methodology .

Americans have a lot on their plates in 2024, including an important election to determine who will remain or become again president. But the world does not stop for a U.S. election, and multiple conflicts around the world as well as other issues of global prominence continue to concern Americans.

When asked to prioritize the long-range foreign policy goals of the United States, the majority of Americans say preventing terrorist attacks (73%), keeping illegal drugs out of the country (64%) and preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction (63%) are top priorities. Over half of Americans also see maintaining the U.S. military advantage over other countries (53%) and preventing the spread of infectious diseases (52%) as primary foreign policy responsibilities.

About half of Americans say limiting the power and influence of Russia and China are top priorities. A recent annual threat assessment from the U.S. intelligence community focused heavily on those countries’ strengthening military relationship and their ability to shape the global narrative against U.S. interests.

Fewer than half of Americans say dealing with global climate change (44%) and getting other countries to assume more of the costs of maintaining world order (42%) are top priorities. The partisan gaps on these two issues are quite large:

• 70% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say climate change should be a top priority, while 15% of Republicans and Republican leaners say this.
• 54% of Republicans say getting other countries to assume more of the costs of maintaining world order should be a top priority, compared with 33% of Democrats.

About four-in-ten Americans see limiting the power and influence of North Korea and Iran as top priorities. (The survey was conducted before Iran’s large-scale missile attack on Israel on April 13.) And about a third say the same about the U.S. being a leader in artificial intelligence, a technology that governments around the world are increasingly concerned about .

When it comes to goals that focus on international engagement, like strengthening the United Nations and NATO or finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, fewer than a third of Americans mark these as top foreign policy priorities.

Related: Fewer Americans view the United Nations favorably than in 2023

Only about a quarter of Americans prioritize promoting human rights in other countries, leading other countries in space exploration and reducing military commitments overseas. And similar shares say supporting Ukraine (23%) and Israel (22%) are top issues.

At the bottom of this list of foreign policy priorities are promoting global democracy ( a major policy push from the Biden administration ) and aiding refugees fleeing violence around the world – about two-in-ten Americans describe these as top concerns. These assessments come amid a recent global surge in asylum claims . Still, in Center surveys, democracy promotion has typically been at the bottom of Americans’ list of foreign policy priorities, even dating back to George W. Bush’s and Barack Obama’s administrations .

Overall, a majority of Americans say that all 22 long-range foreign policy goals we asked about should be given at least some priority. Still, about three-in-ten Americans say supporting Israel (31%), promoting democracy (28%) and supporting Ukraine (27%) should be given no priority.

The long-range foreign policy priority questions were also asked in 2018 and 2021, and since then there have been some significant shifts in responses:

• Since 2018, the public has become significantly more likely to say limiting the power and influence of China (+17 percentage points) and finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (+11) are top foreign policy priorities.
• Americans have also increased the emphasis they place on limiting the power and influence of Russia, particularly in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (+8 points since 2021).
• On the decline since 2018 are strengthening the UN and aiding refugees (-8 points each), reducing foreign military commitments (-6), and promoting and defending human rights in other countries (-5).
• Preventing the spread of infectious diseases is down 19 percentage points since 2021 – during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic – and about back to where it was in 2018.

These are among the findings from a Pew Research Center survey conducted April 1-7, 2024.

The survey of 3,600 U.S. adults shows that foreign policy remains a partisan issue. Republicans prioritize the prevention of terrorism, reducing the flow of illegal drugs into the country, and maintaining a military advantage over other nations. Meanwhile, Democrats prioritize dealing with climate change and preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), but also preventing terrorist attacks.

There are also stark age differences on many of the policy goals mentioned, but for the most part, young adults are less likely than older Americans to say the issues we asked about are top priorities. The exceptions are dealing with climate change, reducing military commitments overseas, and promoting and defending human rights abroad – on these issues, 18- to 29-year-olds are significantly more likely than older Americans to assign top priority.

Even with these priorities, foreign policy generally takes the backset to domestic policy for most Americans: 83% say it is more important for President Joe Biden to focus on domestic policy, compared with 14% who say he should focus on foreign policy.

Americans are even less likely to prioritize international affairs than they were in 2019, when 74% wanted then-President Donald Trump to focus on domestic policy and 23% said he should focus on foreign policy.

Americans’ foreign policy priorities differ greatly by party. The largest divide, by a significant margin, is the 55 percentage point gap between Democrats and Republicans on dealing with global climate change (70% vs. 15%, respectively, see it as a top priority).

Supporting Ukraine, aiding refugees, reducing the spread of diseases, protecting human rights, and strengthening the UN are also issues on which Democrats are at least 20 points more likely than Republicans to prioritize. For example, 63% of Democrats say reducing the spread of infectious diseases is a top priority, compared with 41% of Republicans.

Republicans prioritize supporting Israel, reducing the flow of illegal drugs and maintaining a military advantage over other countries – among other security and hard power issues – significantly more than Democrats do. For example, more than half of Republicans (54%) say getting other countries to assume more of the costs of maintaining world order should be a top focus in foreign policy. Only a third of Democrats say the same.

The priority assigned to several issues is divided even further by ideology within parties. Take support for Israel and Ukraine as examples. Supporting Israel is generally a higher priority for Republicans than Democrats, but within the Republican Party, 48% of conservatives say it’s a top concern, while 18% of moderates and liberals agree. Previous Center research shows that conservative Republicans are especially likely to favor military aid to Israel .

Supporting Ukraine, something Democrats emphasize more than Republicans, is a top priority particularly for liberal Democrats (47%), while about three-in-ten moderate and conservative Democrats agree (29%). Democrats have also shown more willingness than Republicans to provide aid to Ukraine in its conflict with Russia.

Generally, the partisan differences on the importance of several foreign policy issues have gotten smaller since 2021 , when most of these questions were last fielded. This is especially true for items related to the relative power of major countries, like the U.S. maintaining a military advantage and limiting the power and influence of both Russia and China.

However, finding a solution to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians – a priority that saw no partisan difference at all when it was last asked about in 2018 – has an emerging partisan gap today. The share of Democrats who call this a top priority has more than doubled, while the share of Republicans has changed little.

Age differences persist on foreign policy issues. Older Americans prioritize most of the issues we asked about at higher rates than those ages 18 t0 29.

On four issues, there is at least a 40 percentage point gap between Americans ages 65 and older and young adults ages 18 to 29. The oldest Americans are more likely to prioritize reducing the flow of illegal drugs, limiting the power and influence of China and Iran, and maintaining a U.S. military advantage.

Those in the oldest age group are also more concerned than their younger counterparts on an additional 11 issues, ranging from support for Israel to U.S. leadership in space exploration.

For their part, young adults are more likely to say dealing with global climate change, reducing U.S. military commitments overseas, and promoting and defending human rights in other countries should be top foreign policy priorities.

Even starker patterns appear when looking at partisanship within two age groups – adults ages 18 to 49 and those 50 and older.

Among Democrats, older adults place particularly high priority on supporting Ukraine, strengthening NATO, and limiting the power and influence of Russia amid its war with Ukraine. Older Democrats are also more likely than younger ones to prioritize preventing the development of WMDs, curbing the spread of diseases, strengthening the UN and promoting democracy around the world, among other issues.

Among Republicans, those ages 50 and older are more likely than those ages 18 to 49 to prioritize supporting Israel, limiting the power and influence of Iran and China, getting other countries to assume more foreign policy costs, reducing the amount of illegal drugs entering the U.S., preventing terrorism, and maintaining a military advantage.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Environment & Climate
• Global Health
• Human Rights
• International Affairs
• United Nations
• War & International Conflict

A growing share of Americans have little or no confidence in Netanyahu

Fewer americans view the united nations favorably than in 2023, rising numbers of americans say jews and muslims face a lot of discrimination, younger americans stand out in their views of the israel-hamas war, how u.s. muslims are experiencing the israel-hamas war, most popular, report materials.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy