 |
 |
|
Home |
Current Issue |
Past Issues |
Search |
Collections |
Subscribe |
Contact Us |
Help |
ACP Online
|
 Services
| |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
About Annals
| |||||||||
|
Click on any of the following to go directly to that section.
Article Formats
Fast-Track Publication
Manuscript Processing
Manuscript Publication
Pre-Publication Policy
Author's Professional and Ethical Responsibilities
Clinical Trials Registration
Guidelines for Preparing Manuscripts
On Being a Doctor/On Being a Patient
Letters
We will consider manuscripts for expedited review and early publication if they are of very high quality, if they have findings that are likely to affect practice immediately, and if rapid publication would probably minimize adverse patient care consequences. We will give particular priority for fast-tracking to large clinical trials. If authors think that their manuscript warrants fast-tracking and expedited review, they should contact Deputy Editor Dr. Cynthia Mulrow (cynthiam{at}acponline.org). Authors should provide her with an electronic version of the manuscript, the protocol and registry identification number, and a justification for expedited review.
Within 48 hours, 2 Editors will judge whether a manuscript is eligible for expedited review. The review process will take approximately 3 weeks. We will write to the author with any suggestions for revision no later than 1 month after we initially received the manuscript and expect that authors will return the revised manuscript within 2 weeks. If we accept the manuscript, we will schedule it for publication immediately. In most instances, we will publish fast-track manuscripts electronically on www.annals.org within 2 weeks of acceptance, with print publication 2 months later.
We acknowledge all manuscripts and assign each a unique, confidential manuscript number. Please give this number only to other authors of the paper. We require the manuscript number to release information on the manuscript. We provide the corresponding author (the only person to receive the necessary password) with instructions for checking the status of the manuscript online.
At least 1 Editor and 1 Associate Editor read each manuscript. Together, they decide whether to send the paper to outside reviewers. If your paper is rejected without external review, you will be notified electronically within 2 to 3 weeks of receipt. We send about 50% of submitted papers for peer review, usually to at least 2 reviewers. The Editors select reviewers from an electronic database of about 13 000 reviewers. We do not send a manuscript to a reviewer who is affiliated with the same institution as any of the authors. Authors may list individuals who they do not want to be a reviewer but must justify their requested exception in the cover letter.
Annals can publish only a fraction of all papers submitted each year. In recent years, 13% of all submissions and 7% of Articles and Brief Communications were accepted. Editors judge the potential importance and newness of material and consider scientific rigor by using established methodologic criteria (See ACP Journal Club Basic Criteria at www.acpjc.org). They select manuscripts on the basis of the strength of the paper compared with other papers under review, the need for Annals to represent a balanced picture of important advances in internal medicine, and the number of accepted papers in the paper's category and topic area. Almost all papers that we accept require some editorial or statistical revision before publication. Of note, to check or clarify analyses and findings, editors may ask researchers to provide the raw data for their studies during review or at any time up to 5 years after publication in Annals.
We send the reviewers' comments to authors regardless of whether we accept the article. On occasion, we reject an article but invite a resubmission that addresses specific concerns of the Editors. We aim to accept a high percentage (at least three quarters) of these articles that we reinvite, and we specify conditions that the authors must meet before we will accept a reinvited manuscript. Upon resubmission, we assign reinvited manuscripts a new unique, confidential manuscript number. Editors determine whether to send the reinvited manuscript for repeated external peer review or internal editorial and statistical review only on a case-by-case basis.
Authors who think that their manuscripts were rejected wrongly may e-mail an appeal letter to the Editor who handled the manuscript. The letter should detail the author's concern and state how the manuscript could be revised or clarified to address key problems mentioned by editors and reviewers. The Editors expect appeals infrequently and do not reverse their original decisions often. Many rejections involve Editors' judgments of priority that authors usually cannot address through an appeal. Editors only consider appeals that are submitted within 3 months of the manuscript's rejection and consider appeals only once. Upon receiving the appeal, Editors may confirm their decision to reject the manuscript, invite a revised manuscript, or seek additional peer review or statistical review of the original manuscript.
All accepted manuscripts are subject to copy editing to improve clarity and achieve consistency of style and formatting of journal content. Authors will have the opportunity to approve revisions made during the copy editing process. Editors will work with authors to arrive at agreement when authors do not find the revisions acceptable, but Annals reserves the right to refrain from publishing a manuscript if discussion with the author fails to reach a solution that satisfies the Editors.
We notify authors when they can expect to receive proofs. Authors who think they may not be able to examine proofs within 48 hours of receiving them should call the Editorial Production Supervisor (215-351-2633) to designate a colleague who will review proofs.
We send a form for ordering reprints to authors when we send the proofs of the edited manuscript. If the author does not return the form to the address listed on the form, we will not order reprints. Third parties who wish to order reprints of published articles may do so by contacting Helen Canavan (hcanavan{at}acponline.org).
All authors who are not subscribers or members of the American College of Physicians receive a complimentary copy of the issue in which their paper appears.
Annals gives free access to the following content:
1. Articles published early at www.annals.org prior to publication in the print version of Annals
2. Articles that the Editors determine to be of immediate importance to the public
3. Clinical Guidelines and Summaries for Patients (use the advanced search page to search Annals for only these articles)
4. PDFs of all articles from 1999 to 6 months before the current issue
5. Full text (HTML) of all articles from 1993 to 1998 (these issues do not contain PDFs of articles)
6. Any article if the user is:
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Policy on Enhancing Public Access to Archived Publications Resulting from NIH-Funded Research (Public Access Policy) strongly encourages all investigators to make their NIH-funded, peer-reviewed, author's final manuscript available to other researchers and the public through the NIH National Library of Medicine's (NLM) PubMed Central (PMC) immediately after the final date of journal publication. In support of this policy, we encourage authors of accepted manuscripts that describe original research funded entirely or in part by a NIH grant to submit their manuscript to the NIH grantee site.
All Annals articles are available from the journal site free of charge 6 months after publication. We ask NIH authors to help us maintain this policy by telling PubMed Central to display their manuscript no sooner than 6 months after publication.
To comply with the NIH directive, authors should ask the Annals production editor to send the manuscript to them. The authors can then submit the manuscript to PubMed Central. The Annals article of record is the final published version. We strongly prefer that authors of NIH-funded research send the final published version to the NIH grantee site.
This request reflects our opinion about good publishing practice. After we issue a final acceptance notice, an article often undergoes substantial change during the production editing process. We feel strongly that having two versions of an article (the pre-publication version and the final published version) is poor publishing practice. We ask NIH authors to help us maintain good publishing practice by sending the final published version of their article to PubMed Central.
Annals will not assume responsibility for pre-publication versions of articles. Authors who choose to submit a pre-publication version should ask PubMed Central to display prominently the following disclaimer:
"This is the pre-publication, author-produced version of a manuscript accepted for publication in Annals of Internal Medicine. This version does not include post-acceptance editing and formatting. The American College of Physicians, the publisher of Annals of Internal Medicine, is not responsible for the quality of the content or presentation of the author-produced accepted version of the manuscript or in any version that a third party derives from it. Readers who wish to access the definitive published version of this manuscript and any ancillary material related to this manuscript (correspondence, corrections, editorials, linked articles, etc.) should go to www.annals.org. Those who cite this manuscript should cite the published version as it is the official version of record."
Both the pre-publication version and the published manuscript are protected by Annals copyright at the time of publication and thereafter (see Pre-Publication Policy).
Annals publishes on the first and third Tuesday of each month. Annals sends advance copies of the journal to members of the news media the week before publication. Reporters may not publish stories based on this information until 5:00 p.m. (U.S. Eastern time) of the day before the date of publication of an issue. Authors are free to discuss their research with representatives of the media but should not distribute copies of papers accepted for publication in Annals. They should consent to be interviewed only if the reporter agrees to abide by the embargo and will not publish until after the embargo period.
Providing copies of manuscripts or detailed information to media, manufacturers, or government agencies of scientific information described in a paper or a Letter to the Editor that has been accepted but not yet published violates the policies of Annals and many other journals. Annals may grant an exception to this rule when the paper or letter describes major therapeutic advances, public health hazards (such as serious adverse effects of drugs, vaccines, other biological products, or medical devices), or reportable diseases. Pre-publication disclosure as part of sworn testimony before legislative or judiciary bodies may also be acceptable. Authors should discuss any possible pre-publication disclosure with the Editors in advance and obtain their agreement.
The potential for conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author's institution or employer) has personal or financial relationships that could influence (bias) his or her actions. These relationships vary from those with negligible potential to influence judgment to those with great potential to influence judgment. Not all relationships represent true conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can exist regardless of whether an individual believes that the relationship affects his or her scientific judgment.
Authors must state explicitly whether potential conflicts do or do not exist. Financial relationships (such as employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, paid expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, and royalties) are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal, the authors, and science itself. Authors must disclose all financial relationships (both personal and institutional) that could be viewed as presenting a potential conflict of interest. These include, but are not limited to, any financial relationship that involves conditions or tests or treatments discussed in the manuscript AND alternatives to the tests or treatments for those conditions. If authors are uncertain, they should err on the side of full disclosure. Disclosure of these relationships is essential not only for original research articles but also for editorials, letters, commentary, and review articles. Annals will publish conflict of interest disclosures.
We also ask the corresponding author to attest that the authors had access to all the study data, take responsibility for the accuracy of the analysis, and had authority over manuscript preparation and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. We request this information as part of the electronic submission process, and we do not consider an article unless the corresponding author makes this attestation on behalf of the authors. In addition, in the Methods section of the text, authors must state the funding organization and describe the role(s) of the funding organization in the design of the study; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and the decision to approve publication of the finished manuscript. If the funding source had no such involvement, the authors should so state.
Authorship implies accountability. Listed authors must have contributed directly to the intellectual content of the paper, and the corresponding author should list the specific contributions of all authors in the appropriate section of the Authors' Form. Authors should meet all of the following criteria, thereby allowing persons named as authors to accept public responsibility for the content of the paper.
1. Conceived and planned the work that led to the article or played an important role in interpreting the results or both.
2. Wrote the paper and/or made substantive suggestions for revision.
3. Approved the final version.
Holding positions of administrative leadership, contributing patients to a study, and collecting and preparing the data for analysis, however important to the research, are not, by themselves, criteria for authorship. The manuscript should note people who have made substantial, direct contributions to the work but did not meet the criteria for authorship in the Acknowledgments section, and should provide a brief description of their contributions.
Medical writers and industry employees can be legitimate contributors, and their roles, affiliations, and potential conflicts of interest should be described when submitting manuscripts (1, 2). These writers should receive acknowledgment on the byline or in the Acknowledgments section in accord with the degree to which they contributed to the work reported in the manuscript. The Editors consider failure to acknowledge these contributors ghostwriting, and ghostwriting is unacceptable.
Authors should notify editors of any changes in authorship (e.g. additions or deletions of author names) that occur after the original submission of the article, and explain them. Any author added to the manuscript after the original submission must fill out a contributorship attestation per usual journal policies. Editors may contact authors whose names have been removed from the manuscript to ask if the deleted author initiated the change and, if so, if they have concerns about the representation of the data in the paper.
All authors of papers accepted for publication must sign a form affirming that they have met the criteria for authorship, have agreed to be authors, and are aware of the terms of publication (see Authors' Form). We request that authors complete these forms when we suggest revisions to manuscripts. We do not require them when manuscripts are initially submitted. We also request that authors provide written permission from the individuals who they wish to list in the Acknowledgments section when we suggest revisions to manuscripts.
The corresponding author will serve as the first contact for all communication about manuscripts submitted to Annals, and it is this person's responsibility to share all Annals communication with all of the authors. In addition, it is the corresponding author's responsibility to respond to any questions regarding the integrity of the work, including but not limited to requests for study protocols or trial registry information, study data, and documentation of institutional review board approval. If the list of authors changes between submission and final acceptance of an article, it is the corresponding author's responsibility to explain the changes to the Editors in writing and to obtain written documentation that all of the authors (including deleted authors) approve of the author changes.
All authors, except U.S. government employees whose work was done as part of their official duties, must transfer copyright to the American College of Physicians, publisher of Annals. Transfer of copyright signifies transfer of rights for print publication; electronic publication; production of reprints, facsimiles, microfilm, or microfiche; or publication in a language other than English. We usually grant permission on request and without charge when authors ask to use portions of their work published in Annals for limited educational purposes and in other scholarly publications.
We ask that authors give full details on any possible previous or duplicate publication of any content of the manuscript in a cover letter. Previous publication of a small fraction of the content of a manuscript does not necessarily preclude its being published in Annals, but the Editors need information about previous publication when deciding how to use space in the journal efficiently; they regard authors' failure to disclose possible prior or concurrent publication as a breach of scientific ethics (see Pre-Publication Policy). Please attach a copy of any document that might be considered a previous publication at initial submission. If at any time the author submits to another journal a manuscript or Letter to the Editor that is under review by Annals, the author must inform the Annals Editors.
Research that involves human participants includes investigations that use only human blood, tissue, or medical records. The authors must confirm review of the study by the appropriate institutional review board or affirm that the protocol is consistent with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (3). If the authors did not obtain institutional review board approval before the start of the study, they should so state and explain the circumstances. If the study was exempt from review, the authors must state that such exemption complied with the policy of their local institutional review board. They should affirm that study participants gave their informed consent or state than an institutional review board approved conduct of the research without explicit consent from the participants. If patients are identifiable from illustrations, photographs, pedigrees, case reports, or other study data, the authors must submit the release form for each such individual (or copies of the figures with the appropriate release statement) giving permission for publication with the manuscript. Consult the Research section of the American College of Physicians Ethics Manual for further information.
In addition to breaches in procedures related to human subjects, research misconduct includes issues related to the fabrication or falsification of data, plagiarism, theft of ideas, duplicate publication, misrepresentation of author contributions, and failure to disclose potential financial conflicts of interest. Should the Editors suspect research misconduct related to manuscripts submitted for review, the journal reserves the right to notify and forward the submitted manuscript to the chief executive officer and/or dean of the sponsoring institution, the funding institution, or other appropriate authority for investigation. Annals recognizes the responsibility to notify the appropriate authorities but does not undertake the actual investigation or make determinations of misconduct. The Editors will notify the authors of the journal's intention to report a suspicion of research misconduct.
All clinical trials must be registered in a public registry prior to submission or the journal won't consider them. We follow the trials registration policy of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (www.ICMJE.org) and consider only trials that have been appropriately registered before submission, regardless of when the trial closed to enrollment. Acceptable registries must meet the following ICMJE requirements: be publicly available, searchable, and open to all prospective registrants; have a validation mechanism for registration data; and be managed by a not-for-profit organization.
As defined by the ICMJE, a clinical trial is any research project that prospectively assigns human subjects to intervention and comparison groups to study the cause-and-effect relationship between a medical intervention and a health outcome. A medical intervention is any intervention used to modify a health outcome and includes but is not limited to drugs, surgical procedures, devices, behavioral treatments, and process-of-care changes. A trial must have at least one prospectively assigned concurrent control or comparison group in order to trigger the requirement for registration. Nonrandomized trials are not exempt from the registration requirement if they meet the above criteria.
Annals has several categories of articles, each with its own requirements (Table). We publish original research that addresses prevalence, causes, mechanisms, diagnosis, course, treatment, or prevention of disease. We consider various study types, including meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness analyses, as original research. We divide original research into two categories: Original Articles (3200 or fewer words) and Brief Communications (1500 or fewer words). Brief Communications usually address preliminary or limited results of original research, including case series and important case reports of new, serious adverse drug effects. We consider both narrative and systematic reviews. Narrative reviews are especially suitable for describing cutting-edge and evolving developments and discussing those developments in light of underlying theory. Systematic reviews are especially suitable for critiquing and summarizing a body of evidence relevant to focused questions about diagnostic, prognostic, or therapeutic clinical practices. For narrative reviews, we ask that authors include a box listing 3 to 7 take-home points that link back to the original questions that the review set out to answer. We also publish guidelines, position papers, letters, and essays about controversial medical issues, medical history, medicine and public policy, and patients' or physicians' experiences with illness or health care.
Requirements for all categories of articles largely conform to the "Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals," developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (4, 5). Authors should write for a sophisticated general medical readership; follow principles of clear scientific writing (6-8) and statistical reporting (9, 10); and prepare manuscripts according to recommended reporting guidelines and checklists, whenever possible.
We consider only online submissions (click here to submit online). When submitting manuscripts, authors should also submit a copy of the original research protocol and other supplemental data as attachments if you think they would help the Editors or reviewers better understand the work. Include reprints of published papers and manuscripts of papers in press that contain data that appear in the submitted manuscript to help the Editors form a judgment about the degree of duplicate publication (see Duplicate Publication or Submission). Be prepared to provide original study data if requested by the Editors.
Several guidelines and checklists are available for the reporting of essential elements of randomized, controlled trials, including cluster trials (11-15); meta-analyses of randomized, controlled trials (16); meta-analyses of observational studies (17); observational studies (18); nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral or public health interventions (19); economic analyses (20); case reports of adverse drug reactions (21); diagnostic test studies (22); and guidelines (23, 24). We expect authors of reports in one of these categories to include the elements suggested by the guidelines.
We advise authors to arrange components of manuscripts in the following order (see below for further instructions): title page, abstract, text, acknowledgments (if any), references, tables in numerical sequence, figure legends, figures in numerical sequence, and appendices (if any). Number all pages consecutively, starting with the title page. List the word count of the text of the manuscript at the bottom of the title page. Double space the text of the manuscript.
Do not use abbreviations unless absolutely necessary; do abbreviate long names of chemical substances and terms for therapeutic combinations, such as MOPP. Abbreviate names of tests and procedures that are better known by their abbreviations than by the full name (VDRL test, SMA-12). Abbreviate units of measurement when they appear with numerals ("…measured in milliliters", but "10 mL"). Use abbreviations in figures and tables to save space. Explain all abbreviations used in the figure legend or table footnote.
Use generic names for all drugs. You may refer to an instrument by its proprietary name; give the name and location of the manufacturers in parentheses in the text. Use SI units throughout (25). When reporting values for commonly studied components (α1-antitrypsin, ammonia, bilirubin, calcium, cholesterol, creatinine, creatinine clearance, digoxin, estradiol, glucose, iron, iron binding capacity, lead, lipids [total], lipoproteins, magnesium, phosphate, testosterone, thyroxine [T4], triglycerides, and urea nitrogen), report the value in SI units with traditional units given in parentheses.
Title: Give the main title and subtitle (if any). If the study is a randomized trial, systematic review, or meta-analysis, add that descriptor as the subtitle at the end of the title. Use titles that stimulate interest, are easy to read and are concise (12 words or fewer), and contain enough information to convey the essence of the article. Also provide a short or "running" title of 7 or fewer words.
Authors: List authors in the order in which they are to appear in the byline of the published article. In the case of group authorship, identify one or more authors who will have responsibility for the publication. Give the institutional affiliation for each author, financial support information, contact information for the corresponding author, and contact information for the author to receive reprint requests.
Word Count: List the word count for the text of the manuscript. Don't include the abstract or the references in word counts.
Abstracts should accompany all submissions except Editorials, On Being a Doctor/On Being a Patient pieces, and Clinical Observations (research letters). Use unstructured formats and limits of 175 or fewer words for abstracts of the following: Point of View, In the Balance, Abroad, and Medicine and Public Policy. Use unstructured formats and limits of 275 or fewer words for abstracts of Narrative Reviews, Position Papers, History of Medicine, and Medical Writings. Use structured abstracts of 275 or fewer words for Original Research (Brief Communications 175 or fewer words), Cost-Effectiveness Studies, and Systematic Reviews, including Meta-Analyses (26, 27). Organize structured abstracts for these articles, as shown below.
Original Research
Background, Objective, Design, Setting, Patients, Intervention (if any), Measurements, Results, Limitations, Conclusions. If the study is a randomized, controlled trial, list where the trial is registered and the trial's unique registration number at the end of the abstract.
Cost-Effectiveness Studies
Background, Objective, Design, Data Sources, Target Population, Time Horizon, Perspective, Interventions, Outcome Measures, Results of Base-Case Analysis, Results of Sensitivity Analysis, Limitations, Conclusions.
Systematic Reviews, including Meta-Analyses
Background, Purpose, Data Sources, Study Selection, Data Extraction, Data Synthesis, Limitations, Conclusions.
For original articles, economic analyses, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses, use 4 main headings when arranging text: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. Aim for clear and concise and logically organized presentations. Avoid convoluted sentences and use active voice, whenever possible. Specific guidance regarding text content follows.
Introduction: Use short introductions that concisely set up the context of the research for readers. Always end the introduction section with a clear statement of the study's objectives or hypotheses.
Methods: For studies involving humans, describe in the Methods section how participants were assembled and selected and the sites or setting from which they were recruited. Then describe study procedures, including any interventions, measurements and data collection techniques. Use figures to diagram study processes, including the flow of participants through the study. Provide the number of patients at each stage of recruitment and follow-up, including the number who declined to participate and the number who completed follow-up. State, if true, that an institutional review board approved the study or affirm that the protocol is consistent with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (3) and state whether participants gave their informed consent. For studies that have numerical data and use statistical inference, include a section under Methods that describes the methods used for the statistical analysis and that states the specific statistical software. For all studies, include a statement at the end of the Methods section describing the role of the funding source for the study. If the study had no external funding source or if the funding source had no role in the study, state so explicitly.
Results: Fully describe the study sample so that readers can gauge how well the study findings apply to their patients (external validity). Then present primary findings followed by any secondary and subgroup findings. Use tables and figures to demonstrate main characteristics of participants and major findings. Avoid redundancy between text and tables and figures.
Discussion: Consider structuring the discussion according to the following sequence. First, provide a brief synopsis of key findings, with particular emphasis on how the findings add to the body of pertinent knowledge. Second, discuss possible mechanisms and explanations for the findings. Third, compare study results with relevant findings from other published work. Briefly state literature search sources and methods (e.g., English-language MEDLINE search to January 2007) that identified previous pertinent work. Use tables and figures to help summarize previous work when possible. Fourth, discuss the limitations of the present study and any methods used to minimize or compensate for those limitations. Fifth, mention any crucial future research directions. Sixth, conclude with a brief section that summarizes in a straightforward and circumspect manner the clinical implications of the work.
Acknowledge only persons who have contributed to the scientific content or provided technical support. Authors should obtain written permission from anyone who they wish to list in the Acknowledgments section. The corresponding author must also affirm that he or she has listed everyone who contributed significantly to the work in the Acknowledgments.
1. Number references, using Arabic numerals in parentheses, in the order in which they first appear in the text. References cited in a table/figure should appear in numeric order relative to the first citation of the table/figure in the text. For example, if the last reference cited before the table/figure in question is mentioned as reference 14, and that table/figure contains 5 references that have not been cited, the references in the table/figure would be numbered 15 through 19. Reference citations in the text would then recommence with number 20.
2. Appendix material should not have separate reference sections. References that appear in both the text and the appendix should be numbered as they appear in the text. Any references that appear only in the appendix should be added consecutively to the end of the text reference list.
3. Use the reference style of the National Library of Medicine, including the abbreviations of journal titles.
4. List all authors when there are 6 or fewer; when there are 7 or more authors, list only the first 6 and add "et al."
5. Do not use ibid. or op cit.
6. Include an "available from" note for documents that may not be readily accessible.
7. Cite symposium papers only from published proceedings.
8. When citing an article or book accepted for publication but not yet published, include the title of the journal (or name of the publisher) and the year of expected publication.
9. Include references to unpublished material in the text, not in the references (for example, papers presented orally at a meeting; unpublished work [personal communications, papers in preparation]), and submit a letter of permission from the cited persons to cite such communications (in general, avoid citations to unpublished scientific results).
10. Ensure that URLs used as references are active and available (the references should include the date on which the author accessed the URL—for an example, see Citations of Electronic References.
11. Avoid citing a Web site with content that in print would be considered unscholarly, and avoid using an online reference if a more scholarly print reference is available. Archive (preferably in a durable governmental or institutional archive) Web references and cited Web pages when creating bibliographies.
Click here for sample references that conform to the style specified by the Uniform Requirements agreement.
Use footnotes only on the title page and in tables. Do not use footnotes in the text. Footnote symbols, in the order in which they should be used, are *, †, ‡, §, ||, **, ††, ‡‡. Do not use numbers or letters.
Number tables with Arabic numerals in the order in which they appear in the text. Tables that are meant as appendix material should be numbered as Appendix Table 1, Appendix Table 2, and so on. Use titles that concisely describe the content of the table so that a reader can understand the table without referring to the text. Tables may contain abbreviations that we do not permit in the text, but the table should contain a footnote that explains the abbreviation. Give the units of measure for all numerical data in a column or row. Place units of measure under a column heading or at the end of a side heading only if those units apply to all numerical data in the column or row.
Number figures with Arabic numerals in the order in which they appear in the text. Figures that are meant as appendix material should be numbered as Appendix Figure 1, Appendix Figure 2, and so on. Each figure should have a figure legend that begins with a short title. Reduce the length of legends by using phrases rather than sentences. Explain all abbreviations and symbols on the figure, even if an explanation appears in the text. For pictures of histologic slides, give stain and magnification data at the end of the legend for each part of the figure. If no scale marker appears on the figure, give the original magnification used during the observation, not that of the photographic print.
Acknowledgments to original sources of borrowed material should use the wording specified by the original publisher of the material. If there is no specified wording, cite the authors, reference number, and the publisher. Letters of permission from the copyright holder must accompany submission of borrowed material.
These sections of the journal contain short essays on illuminating experiences of physicians or patients. Physicians, patients, and their families are invited to submit essays. Authors should specify in a cover letter whether the essay is nonfiction, fiction, or a fictionalized account of true events. If the essay is nonfiction, we ask that the authors mask the identity of people. In addition, the Editors feel it is important for authors to show the manuscript to those described in the essay and to obtain their permission to publish the material. Annals does not require signed permission from the subjects of essays, but we do require the authors to state in writing whether they obtained the subjects' permission. If the author has not obtained permission, he or she should explain the reasons for its absence in a cover letter that accompanies the manuscript. We publish nonfiction material that does not have the subject's permission at the Editors' discretion.
We publish the following categories of Letters: Clinical Observations (includes case reports and case series), Comments and Responses (comments on papers published in Annals), and Corrections. Authors of case reports or small case series generally should submit their report as a Clinical Observation (up to 600 words). However, if an author believes that the case report or small case series is important enough to warrant publication as a Brief Communication (up to 1500 words), they should contact the Editor for advice about which format to use.
Clinical Observations must be 600 words or fewer and must be structured with the following sections: Background, Objective, Methods and Findings (or Case Report, as applicable), Discussion, and References (no more than 5). They generally should have 5 or fewer authors and may include 1 table or figure. We will publish a limited selection of Clinical Observations in the print journal and also will publish some solely on the Annals Web site. Authors of Clinical Observations must submit their letters online (submitting Letters online) and should note whether they are willing to have their letter published electronically only if it is not selected for print publication. Of note, the National Library of Medicine does index electronically published Letters.
Readers who wish to comment on published articles should use the Rapid Response mechanism. Comments should be no longer than 400 words, generally have 3 or fewer authors, use no more than 5 references, and avoid making points that duplicate what authors of already posted comments have said. Annals staff will read and post, usually within 24 to 72 hours, constructive comments that relate specifically to the content of published manuscripts. An Annals staff member will screen all letters; however, Annals editors typically do not edit submitted responses, so pay careful attention to spelling and grammar. Annals will not post comments that use profanity, offensive language, or personal attacks; that may be abusive or libelous; that ask for personal advice or referrals; or that include advertisements promoting products. To submit a Rapid Response, go to www.annals.org and click on the issue with the article you want to comment on. In the Table of Contents, click on the full-text or PDF version of the article. When the article appears, look to the right side of the screen and click on "Send comment/rapid response letter."
The Editors will select some Rapid Responses submitted within 4 weeks of the publication date of the pertinent article for print publication in Annals. The Editors will ask authors of the articles to respond to the comments selected for print publication. Authors of material selected for print publication will be asked to submit copyright forms and conflict of interest disclosures.
1. Daskalopoulou SS, Mikhailidis DP. The involvement of professional medical writers in medical publications [Editorial]. Curr Med Res Opin. 2005;21:307-10. [PMID: 15802002]
2. Jacobs A, Wager E. European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) guidelines on the role of medical writers in developing peer-reviewed publications. Curr Med Res Opin. 2005;21:317-22. [PMID: 15802003]
3. World Medical Association declaration of Helsinki. Recommendations guiding physicians in biomedical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 1997;277:925-6. [PMID: 9062334]
4. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Available at www.ICMJE.org.
5. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126:36-47. [PMID: 8992922]
6. Gopen GD, Swan JA. The science of scientific writing. Am Sci. 1990;78:550-8.
7. Scientific Style and Format: The CBE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers. 6th ed. New York: Cambridge Univ Pr; 1994.
8. Huth EJ. Medical Style and Format. Philadelphia: ISI Pr; Baltimore MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1987.
9. Bailar JC 3rd, Mosteller F. Guidelines for statistical reporting in articles for medical journals. Amplifications and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 1988;108:266-73. [PMID: 3341656]
10. Lang TA, Secic M. How To Report Statistics in Medicine. Philadelphia: American Coll of Physicians; 1997.
11. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:657-62. [PMID: 11304106]
12. CONSORT Statement. Accessed at www.consort-statement.org on 20 February 2006.
13. Ioannidis JP, Evans SJ, Gøtzsche PC, O'Neill RT, Altman DG, Schulz K, et al. Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:781-8. [PMID: 15545678]
14. Campbell MJ. Extending CONSORT to include cluster trials [Editorial]. BMJ. 2004;328:654-5. [PMID: 15031214]
15. Gagnier JJ, Boon H, Rochon P, Moher D, Barnes J, Bombardier C, et al. Reporting randomized, controlled trials of herbal interventions: an elaborated CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:364-7. [PMID: 16520478]
16. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999;354:1896-900. [PMID: 10584742]
17. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283:2008-12. [PMID: 10789670]
18. STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology: STROBE Statement. Accessed at www.strobe-statement.org on 10 March 2006.
19. Des Jarlais DC, Lyles C, Crepaz N. Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND statement. Am J Public Health. 2004;94:361-6. [PMID: 14998794]
20. Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, Gold MR. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 1996;276:1339-41. [PMID: 8861994]
21. Edwards IR, Aronson JK. Adverse drug reactions: definitions, diagnosis, and management. Lancet. 2000;356:1255-9. [PMID: 11072960]
22. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. Towards a complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:40-4. [PMID: 12513043]
23. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328:1490. [PMID: 15205295]
24. Shiffman RN, Shekelle P, Overhage JM, Slutsky J, Grimshaw J, Deshpande AM. Standardized reporting of clinical practice guidelines: a proposal from the Conference on Guideline Standardization. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139:493-8. [PMID: 13679327]
25. Young DS, Huth EJ. SI Units for Clinical Measurement. Philadelphia: American Coll of Physicians; 1998.
26. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126:376-80. [PMID: 9054282]
27. Haynes RB, Mulrow CD, Huth EJ, Altman DG, Gardner MJ. More informative abstracts revisited. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113:69-76. [PMID: 2190518]
Subscribe