Instructions for AuthorsOutline of this Document(scroll down to read content or click to advance to a specific section)
Scope of the Journal
Overview of these instructions
Section I: Writing your manuscript
Section II: Categories of articles published by Annals
Section III: Formatting and Submitting your manuscript
Section IV: Review and Publication Process
Subheadings
References
Annals of Emergency Medicine, the official journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians, is an international, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to improving the quality of care by publishing the highest quality science for emergency medicine and related medical specialties. Annals publishes original research, clinical reports, opinion, and educational information related to the practice, teaching, and research of emergency medicine. In addition to general emergency medicine topics, Annals regularly publishes articles on out-of-hospital emergency medical services, pediatric emergency medicine, injury and disease prevention, health policy and ethics, disaster management, toxicology, and related topics. The journal welcomes submissions from international contributors and researchers of all specialties. Annals continues to be the largest circulation peer review journal in emergency medicine (over 28,000 subscribers, several times its nearest competitor). It is also one of the most accessible to non-subscribing readers, since 5,365 institutions include Annals in their online licenses for ScienceDirect (the world's largest electronic collection of science, technology and medicine full text and bibliographic information). ScienceDirect was utilized for access to Annals articles approximately 562,000 times last year, a 24% increase from the prior year. Annals is also available on the Web (with full text of all articles dating back to its inception), where it received an average of 55,000 page views per month. More than 145,000 reprints were ordered last year. Annals is the emergency medicine journal most frequently cited by authors and has the highest impact factor of all 12 journals in the emergency medicine category of the SCI. The impact factor (the average number of citations per published article) is the commonest measure of journal influence; the 2008 impact factor for Annals is 3.755, representing 8,227 citations (a 15% increase from the prior year). Among the over 6,000 science and medical journals in the Science Citation Index, Annals ranked in the top 11% by citation frequency and the top 11% by impact factor. In the past 5 years, 1,224 different journals in the ISI science journal database cited an article in Annals, and in a typical year, Annals articles are cited by over 400 different scientific journals, most of them from a broad range of specialties outside of emergency medicine. Annals’ articles also generate considerable interest in the lay media. From October 2007 through September 2008 there were more than 1,250 hits in print and television. Radio coverage grew from 8,000 hits to 13,092 hits. Major outlets included the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, National Public Radio, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Newsweek, Reuters, Associated Press and CNN, as well as many trade publications. Annals is an international journal; half of the full text articles accessed via ScienceDirect were downloaded by readers in 79 countries outside the U.S. Our contributors are also international in scope; in 2008 submissions came to us from 39 different countries, with 36% of submissions originating outside the United States, and 19% originating outside North America and Western Europe. The largest volume other than the U.S. was submitted from Taiwan, Turkey, Canada, France, the United Kingdom, Korea, Netherlands, and Australia, in descending order. But the list also includes Brazil, Thailand, Mexico, Tunisia, Georgia, Finland, and Bulgaria. We strongly believe we have an obligation to make our journal available to international audiences regardless of their financial resources, and therefore have participated for many years in the HINARI initiative sponsored by large journal publishers (http://www.healthinternetwork.org/src/eligibility.php), which makes Annals available free or at greatly reduced cost in low-income countries. In 2007, Annals ranked 141st out of 1,423 Elsevier journal titles in full-text downloads of articles in HINARI countries. In 2009 Annals was chosen one of the 100 most influential scientific journals of the past 100 years by the Special Libraries Association (www.sla.org). The Special Libraries Association is one of the most respected and largest (11,000 members) library organizations. The entire list is at (http://www.sla.org/content/Events/centennial/dbio100.cfm). Some of the high profile medical journals on the list were Cell, Circulation, JAMA, The Lancet, Nature, NEJM, and Science. Annals is flattered to have received this recognition, which is testimony to the hard work, talent, and dedication of its editorial board, its staff, and all the authors who contribute to it. Annals tries in every way to make the peer review process for authors submitting manuscripts prompt and helpful. As part of that process we ask every author to rate our performance at the time they receive our decision on their manuscript (including those papers which we reject). In the summer of 2006 we instituted an online survey for all submitting authors to complete after they receive their decision (including those whose papers are not accepted for publication, who may be over-represented in this sample). In 2009, 93 authors provided feedback. Compared to the promptness and responsiveness of other scientific journals, they rated us better or much better 81% of the time. Sixty percent felt our review process improved their manuscript a moderate or large amount. Sixty-five percent found the communications and reviews more courteous and knowledgeable than other journals. Seventy-three percent would recommend Annals to other researchers and/or submit to Annals again. For every question, "5" (the best score) was the most common choice, usually by a large margin.
 Annals believes that peer review of original manuscripts should be prompt, knowledgeable, and constructive. We seek to provide peer reviews that improve scientific manuscripts, not merely criticize them. Annals also takes pride in the timeliness of its decisions, which is greatly aided by its completely Web-based submission and review system. Some papers are reviewed by editors and not sent out for additional peer review, particularly if they are better suited to other journals, are very similar in design to recent publications in Annals, are editorials solicited by the editor, etc. For these manuscripts, mean time from receipt of the manuscript to editorial decision is 4 days. For all scientific manuscripts submitted to the journal, including those sent out for full peer review, the mean time to initial decision was 18 days. The mean time to initial decision for all manuscripts sent out for review was 26 days. This performance is among the very best of any medical scientific journal.
Time to publicationAfter the final proofs of accepted manuscripts have been approved by the author, they are now published on the journal Web site in final form as PDF files. They are fully accessible to our subscribers on the date they are posted to the Web site and this date counts as the official publication date on MEDLINE, although the article will also appear later in the print journal.
These Instructions for Authors are divided into 4 equally
important sections. Section I describes our overall philosophy and expectations
regarding how original science should be conducted and reported. Section II
describes the types of submissions that the journal accepts. Section III
contains specific technical and formatting instructions to help authors prepare
their manuscripts for submission with appropriate font, page margins, and so
on. Section IV explains what you may expect from our review process.
We understand that each journal has its own requirements
and that there is little uniformity among journals. Our requirements reflect
the preferences of our editors and readers, but they also are tailored to
reflect what is known from research about best publication practices and the
clearest communication of information. Most of these instructions should be
familiar to you and not unique. Those that do not fit this description were not
chosen arbitrarily, but instead represent the direction toward which we believe
scientific publishing is evolving. We do not expect every manuscript to comply
in every regard, but the more consistent a manuscript is with these guidelines,
the more likely is publication. General:
We seek forthright, detailed reports of scientific investigations; review and
educational articles; and scientific, ethical, social, political, and economic
commentary on topics of importance to emergency medicine. We value reports of
original science that accurately and clearly describe what was done and why it
was done. Much of the medical literature is written as if studies were
perfectly conducted, but we know this is not possible. We fully expect that
some part of every clinical study will deviate from the ideal. The candid
disclosure of such deviations and the reasons they occurred is encouraged
because it enhances the scientific process. Writing Style: A well-written paper is more likely to be accepted for
publication, and subsequently read and cited by others. We prefer a
straightforward, unpretentious style whose chief purpose is to efficiently
convey information. Use the active voice. Sentences should be simple and short.
Never use a lengthy scientific term when a clear simpler one is available. In
general, brevity conveys more genuine information than loquacity, and leads you
and the reader to think more carefully about your message. The British Medical Journal is a good example of
concise and effective writing that communicates a good deal of information with
a modest number of words. We discourage the use of any but the most necessary
of abbreviations; they may be a convenience for an author but are generally an
impediment to easy comprehension for the reader. Most papers should have few or
none of them. We particularly discourage the use of newly coined (and quickly
forgotten) abbreviations to describe simple terms that most people say in
English. Examples include BU for bedside ultrasound, UD for usual dose, CorrCrCl for corrected creatinine
clearance, PEP for pediatric emergency physicians, ACE for adverse cardiac
events, and VCPRCE for very confusing patients requiring a comprehensive
evaluation (we invented none of these abbreviations except the last, but ones
like it are occasionally also used). We appreciate the desire to save trees,
but the need is not that great. For grammar, style, and punctuation, Annals
uses the American Medical Association's Manual of
Style for editorial style.[2] Word count limits for each type of submission are described
later. Although we do not specify limits for each section of a paper, for
original research papers, we strongly suggest that the number of pages devoted
to the Introduction and Discussion sections not exceed those devoted to Methods
and Results sections. The importance of language editing continues to increase as
journals strive to be truly global. Some articles need more than a style and
grammar correction, and authors whose primary language is not English may wish
to contact medical editors and writers to assist them in preparing their
manuscripts in standard scientific English, which will increase their chance of
acceptance. Such editing should always be done before submission to the journal.
Although authors will have to pay for these services, the pricing is not
prohibitive in most cases. Annals has identified several outside Language Editing
Support services that can be used for this purpose. Links to their Web sites
are available on Elsevier's Author Gateway at: http://authors.elsevier.com/getting_published.html?dc=LE. Guidelines for Different Study Designs: Original Research and Brief Research Reports should reflect your
familiarity with well-established, generally accepted structural guidelines
specific to your type of project. We encourage creativity and originality and
recognize that not all papers can or should meet these guidelines. You will
increase the likelihood of acceptance, however, by identifying and justifying
deviations from guideline recommendations in the paper or in your cover letter. General information about reporting guidelines and the most up-to-date links to specific reporting guidelines can be found at the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research) site. Some examples of types of studies for which there are
generally accepted guidelines, with references to the guideline documents,
include: -Randomized controlled trials[3,4, 5, 6]
-Consolidation of Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) -Trial registration http://www.icmje.org/publishing_10register.html -Studies on diagnostic tests[7-9]
STARD -Clinical prediction rules[10,11] -Observational studies STROBE -STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational
studies in Epidemiology -Chart reviews[24-27]
Chart review methods -Economic evaluations and cost-effectiveness analyses[12-15] -Qualitative research[20-23] -Surveys[28-31] -Meta-analyses of trials of therapy[16]
PRISMA -Meta-analyses of
diagnostic tests[17,18] -Meta-analyses of
observational studies[19]
MOOSE Abstract: Your abstract will be universally available for free online and
will be read far more often than the entire paper. The abstract should be terse
yet clear, accurate, and complete. Divide your 250-word abstract into the
subheadings: Study hypothesis or Objective, Methods (include information on
design, setting, participants, interventions, and main outcomes measured; it is
not mandatory to include the subject headings), Results, and Conclusions.
Present the magnitude of findings rather than the magnitude of test statistics
or P values and keep the amount of numerical reporting consistent with
readability. Do not draw conclusions
stronger or more expansive than those in the body of the paper. Take care to
include all important study limitations and caveats. Introduction: The introduction to most papers should be less than 1.5 double-spaced manuscript pages (about 450 words); certainly no more than 2
pages. A 3-paragraph structure works well to convince the reader that your
topic is new, scientifically important, and clinically relevant. In the first
paragraph, under the subheading Background,
succinctly describe the circumstances that set the stage for your
investigation. Explain the historical context that led you to investigate the
issue. Under Importance,
describe why your investigation is consequential. What are its potential implications?
How does it relate to issues raised in the first paragraph? Why is this
specific investigation the next logical step? Conclude with a third paragraph, Goals of This
Investigation, in which you state the specific research objective in a
detailed manner. Include your primary outcome measure (eg,
"We considered a 1-hour median decrease in length of stay important. . .) and the desired precision of the measurement (. . .and wished to enroll sufficient subjects that we could be 95% certain
that our estimate was within 20 minutes of the true value.") Methods:
Readers will use your Methods section to determine the validity of your study.
Provide enough detail so that a knowledgeable reader could, in principle,
replicate all aspects of your study. A statement of institutional review board
(IRB) approval or exemption from full review is required. The Methods section should be organized in a logical and
sequential order. Help readers by using the following subheadings to divide the
Methods into
meaningful sections: Theoretical model
of the problem
Study design*
Setting*
Selection of
participants*
Interventions
Methods of measurement*
Data collection and processing
Outcome measures
Primary data
analysis*
Sensitivity
analyses *These subheadings should be included in almost every
Original Research paper. Authors may note that our preferences regarding analytic
methods and presentation of results differ somewhat from other journals. Rest
assured that we do not do this to be idiosyncratic or to create annoying
roadblocks on the way to publication. Our philosophy is summarized in the editorial[32] that
introduced this version of the instructions and is supported by many of the
cited references. It represents our attempt to synthesize best practices
regarding the conduct and presentation of clinical research. The instructions
can be summarized as: show your data at the level of the unit of analysis
(using graphics), report estimates of the size of effects (and your confidence
in your estimates) instead of the statistical significance of effects, and
account for bias when making claims about your results. Because there is no
proven best way to do science, we have no absolute rules. Nevertheless, by
reading and complying with what follows and having well thought-out reasons when
you deviate, you will maximize your chances of getting your work published. Begin with an explanation of the theoretical model
underlying the investigation. Provide a broad overview of the study design
using standard terms.
Describe the setting,
method
for selecting participants, study protocol (including any interventions),
methods of
measurement, and methods for data collection
and processing. Identify your primary and secondary outcome measures.
We prefer patient-centered outcomes (eg, pain, mood, mortality, days lost from work or school, quality of life) to intermediate outcomes (eg, change in FEV1, number of defibrillations), and previously validated measures to newly invented ones. Describe the analytic plan
in enough detail that a statistically sophisticated reader with access to the
original data could replicate the results. Justify any data manipulations (eg, combining categories, breaking continuous responses into discrete ranges), and other adjustment techniques. Describe the rationale
for the analytic strategy for each of the research questions or
hypotheses. Do not simply list a series of statistical procedures. We encourage authors to specifically and explicitly describe the assumptions and judgments made in executing their
analytic strategy. We also encourage authors to recognize that, when done properly, detailed graphical presentation of the results is a complete analytic method that does not require additional statistical
modeling to enhance its validity. Inform the reader of how results will be presented. Document the software used for data management and analysis. Anticipate the likely biases to your study and incorporate sensitivity
analyses exploring how these biases might affect results into your
design and analytic plan.[33,34] If you find that providing this level of detail produces a
Methods (or Results) section that is too long, or too complex for the typical reader, consider presenting the details in an appendix. This can be submitted with the manuscript so that the reviewers have access to
all of the details. If the paper is accepted, the appendix can be included on Annals'
Web site instead of in the print journal. Results:
Present the results in a logical, sequential order that parallels the
organization of the Methods section. Account for all subjects, beginning with
the number of subjects who could have participated in the study. Present as much
data as possible at the level of the unit of analysis. Annals'
preferences for reporting results, from most preferred to least are: graphical
depictions of data; summaries of data (ie, means,
medians, ranges); confidence intervals; point estimates; P values; and
other measures of statistical significance.[35] For
example, in a study with 2 groups and a continuous outcome measure, a graph
showing the distribution for each group would be best; measures of central
tendency and dispersion for each group next best; the sentence "the 95%
confidence limits for the difference in means was ____" acceptable; and
the statement, "The difference in means was significant," should be
avoided. Use tables and figures to empower readers to reach their own
conclusions about your work. When describing the dispersion of the data,
present standard deviation, not standard error of the mean. Emphasize the estimation of the size of effects over the
determination of whether effects are statistically significant.[35-43] When possible, avoid statistical hypothesis testing. For more information on these issues see the editorial that accompanied the introduction of this version of the Instructions to
Authors. At minimum, restrict estimation and testing procedures to the a priori
hypotheses of interest. Statistics, whether descriptive or hypothesis testing,
should not be a substitute for the presentation of data. Do not perform
multiple statistical tests or adjustments in an exploratory manner to discover
"significant" P values. When calculating confidence intervals,
or other statistics, consider using methods that incorporate uncertainty
regarding the validity of assumptions implied by classical statistical
techniques.[44-48] Do not repeat data presented in tables and figures in the
text. Use the text to highlight the most important aspects of the figures and
tables and to convey unique information. Round numerical results to a level of
precision appropriate for the study (eg, the percent response in a study group with 80 subjects should be reported as 35%, not 35.6%). For specific guidance based on study design
and analytic strategy, consider using Lang's guidelines.[49]] When using statistical models, do not restrict your analysis to the "best case" scenario. Include sensitivity analyses that explore how results change when the assumptions of the model are altered.[33,34] You may use the following subheadings in the Results
section: Characteristics of study subjects
Main results
Sensitivity analyses Tables and Figures: Make all tables and figures self-explanatory (able to stand alone).
Graphics should be used to convey patterns and details that cannot be
succinctly conveyed in tables or text. When appropriate, include potentially
important covariates in the tables and figures. We prefer graphics that show
the distribution of data (eg, scatterplots,
1-way plots, box plots) to those showing summaries of data (eg,
pie charts, bar graphs of means). If the data collected are paired (eg, pre and post, or 2 different measures on the same
subject), then choose a graphical format that conveys the inherent pairing of
the data. Avoid background gridlines and other formatting that do not convey
information (eg, superfluous use of 3-dimensional
formatting, background shadings).[50-54] Omit
internal horizontal and vertical rules. Arrange tables so that the primary comparisons of interest
are horizontal, left-to-right (the standard reading order). Provide the N for
each column or row and marginal totals where appropriate. For more details on
technical requirements, please click
here. Photographs: Please submit electronic files with a resolution of at least 300 dpi. We may request a print for color verification if your manuscript is
accepted. We accept electronic data from authors in the following formats and
media: TIFF, JPG, EPS, CD, Zip disk. All photographs should be provided as
separate files and numbered according to sequence in the text. Captions should
be provided for each image. Please be sure to delete any identifying patient
information such as name, social security number, etc. The owner and/or subject of the photograph must sign the consent
form, regardless of identifying material. Limitations: Explicitly discuss the limitations of your study. Describe the limitations in the context of the theoretical model of your research. You can lessen the need for a lengthy limitations section by
choosing analytic strategies that account for potential biases. Consider threats to the internal and external validity of your results. Do not simply list potential limitations but examine the magnitude and direction of each bias and how it might affect the interpretation of results. Discuss the implications
of any sensitivity analyses. Discussion: Briefly summarize the results and how they relate to your area of investigation. Do not attempt a literature review. Consider only those
published articles directly relevant to interpreting your results and placing
them in context. Do not stress statistical significance over clinical
importance. Avoid extrapolation to persons or conditions that you have not
explicitly studied in your investigation. Avoid claims about cost or economic
benefit unless a formal cost-effectiveness analysis was presented in the
Methods and Results sections. Do not suggest "more research is
needed" without stating what the specific next step is. You may use the
subheading "In Retrospect" to candidly discuss what you would do
differently if given the opportunity to repeat the study, so others can learn
from your experience. Conclude this section with a brief summary statement.
Take care that the conclusion is restricted to that which can be justified by
your experimental results. You may use the following subheading in the Discussion
section: -In retrospect Appendixes and Web Files: You may submit appendixes that describe either methods or results in more detail than will fit within our specified word limits if these are
needed for clarity of understanding by either peer reviewers or readers. If
appropriate, materials suitable for Web publication but not print publication (eg, audio or video files, see below) can also be submitted. If you do so, indicate the particular reasons for the appendix and whether you
are submitting it for possible Web publication or simply for peer review
purposes. Annals
accepts audio and video files as ancillaries to
the main article. Audio files should be in .mp3 format; the recommended upper
limit for the size of a single file is 10 Mb. Video files should be submitted
in .mov, .mpg, or .avi format, the recommended upper limit for the size of a single file is 10Mb. Any
alternative format supplied may be subject to conversion (if technically
possible) prior to online publication.
Annals
publishes the following types of articles: Original studies of basic or clinical
investigations in areas relevant to emergency medicine. References and a structured abstract (see Formatting and
Submitting Your Manuscript) are required. Maximum length: 4,000 words, 7
tables and/or figures, plus the abstract and references. We encourage you to use online-only
appendices when appropriate to keep the printed paper terse and readable while
providing the details required for replication to interested readers in the
supplement. Reports of preliminary data and findings
or studies with small numbers demonstrating the need for further investigation. References and a structured abstract (see Formatting and
Submitting Your Manuscript) are required; most of the subheadings described
in Organizing Reports of Original Research are expected, but those that unduly add to length can be omitted. Maximum length: 2,000 words, plus the abstract and no
more than 10 references and 3 tables and/or figures. Annals believes that well-done
qualitative research on issues relevant to emergency medicine can be an
important method of hypothesis generation, and welcomes such submissions, which
can be submitted as either Original Research or Brief Research Reports Descriptions of clinical and nonclinical problems and solutions; descriptions of novel
approaches to planning, management, or provision of emergency services; and
practical "how-to" articles describing aspects of emergency medicine
management. A narrative abstract is required.
Maximum length: 4,000 words, plus the abstract (no more than 250 words) and
references. Reviews without rigid structure that address a specific question or issue that is relevant to clinical practice. Such articles should identify and summarize current research relevant to the questions they address, be evidence-based to the extent possible, be balanced, and should detail the importance of the clinical
question or issue to emergency medicine. References must include, but need not
be limited to, the past 3 years of the literature. A narrative abstract is required. Do not combine a case report with a clinical review article. Maximum length: 5,000 words, plus the narrative abstract (no more than 250 words) and references. Systematic Reviews are critical assessments and evaluations
of research (not simply summaries) that attempt to address a focused clinical
question using methods designed to reduce the likelihood of bias. They may
address therapeutic or preventive interventions, performance of diagnostic
tests or questions approached by means of observational study designs. They may
also address questions explored using qualitative research methods. When aggregate analyses are performed in the context of a systematic review, the review is frequently termed a meta-analysis. Prospective authors of systematic reviews are advised to consult the PRISMA statement for guidance on format and other aspects of reporting. Authors may wish to consult www.prisma-statement.org. A narrative abstract is required. Maximum length: 4,000 words, plus the narrative abstract (no more than 250 words) and references. This section is designed to succinctly address specific clinical questions of importance to emergency physicians. Topics presented in this section must be relevant to emergency physicians and have a sufficient literature base to draw a reasonable conclusion, but not such a large literature base that a traditional evidence based-review, meta-analysis or systematic review can be performed. Articles should include a 3-4 sentence abstract listing the general search terms, number of articles summarized, and bottom line recommendation. Opposing authors provide authoritative discussions of
controversial issues in emergency medicine. Presentations are succinct;
discussants on each side of the controversy are expected to address their topic
in 500 to 750 words and employ no more than 10 references. Authors are
provided the opportunity to review and comment on opposing presentations. Each
topic is accompanied by an editor's note that summarizes important concepts.
Participation as an authoritative discussant is by invitation only, but
suggestions for topics and potential authors can be submitted to the editors. Presentation and discussion of a case by an expert, focused
on the problem-solving approach toward a particular clinical problem and
discussion of differential diagnoses and subsequent management at various
stages of the patient's evaluation. Maximum length: 5,000 words. Brief descriptions of a previously undocumented disease
process, a unique unreported manifestation or treatment of a known disease
process, or unique unreported complications of treatment regimens. Entities
previously reported in the emergency medicine literature will not be
considered, and those reported in other specialty literature or in the foreign
literature must be extremely important or pertinent to be considered. Case
reports should contain an abstract, introduction, narrative, and a discussion
focusing on the implications of the case reported. They should not contain a
review of the literature. Maximum length: 1,500 words, no more than 15
references, and 1 table or figure. Authoritative comments or opinions on
major current problems of emergency physicians or on controversial matters with
significant implications for emergency medicine; or, qualified, thorough
analysis and criticism of articles appearing in Annals. Maximum length: 1,500 words plus references. Brief discussion focusing on 1 or 2 key points about a
single study--strengths, weaknesses, where it fits in the context of other
studies, controversies, how it should or should not change our clinical
practice, or how it illustrates some important principle of science or
methodology. Usually written by editors or reviewers involved in the evaluation
of a submitted manuscript, and published concurrently with that manuscript.
Maximum length: 750 words plus references. Personal essays or poetry reflecting the human experience
of emergency medicine, not previously reported by others in our journal, from
the viewpoint of either health care providers or patients. Although there are
no formal requirements, submissions should not exceed 1,500 words and must be
original contributions. Selection for this section will be based on originality
of concept, eloquence, and suitability for our readership. Permissions may be
required if patients or other identifiable persons are described. Discussion, observations, opinions,
corrections, and comments on topics appearing in Annals or elsewhere;
very brief reports or other items of interest.
Maximum length: 500 words, plus no more than 5 references. Letters discussing
an Annals article should be received within 8 weeks of the article's
publication (online or print). Accepted letters referring to online papers will
be held until after print publication of the article. Authors of articles about
which letters are received will be given the opportunity to reply, which will
not be shared with the letter writer prior to publication. Letters of political
or other topics unrelated to the science of medicine, as well as those
containing personal criticisms, will not be published. Photographs of interesting or classic presentations of
diseases are preferred; photographs of portions of the body, as well as radiographic,
ultrasonographic, or microscopic images, are
eligible. ECGs will NOT be accepted.
Photographs should not reveal any identifying characteristics of the patients
to maintain anonymity. In addition, submit a document describing the patient
presentation in one paragraph. Discuss the final diagnosis and relevant
teaching points in another one to two paragraphs, with a maximum total word
count of 250. Submit digital files in TIF format with at least 300 dpi. The
photo consent form, available from the editorial office, must be signed by the
owner of the photo and/or the subject of the photo, if identifiable. If you
experience difficulty uploading the file, submit a low resolution file and send
a CD or hard copy to the editorial office. Annals News and Perspective explores topics relevant to emergency medicine, in particular those in which our specialty interacts with the political, ethical, sociologic, legal and business spheres of our society. Discussion of specific clinical problems and their management will be rare. By design, it will not be a "breaking news" section with the latest (and undigested) developments, but instead a reflective investigation of recent and emerging trends. Articles are by invitation only, but to submit ideas for new topics or feedback, please e-mail the section editor at annalsnews@acep.org. The Residents’ Perspective section provides a peer-reviewed venue for manuscripts on topics pertinent to residents and education that have not been well-covered elsewhere. This includes but is not limited to informative instructional pieces, referenced position papers, and interesting pieces on current emergency medicine topics that are uniquely from the perspective of the resident. We also welcome high quality research that specifically addresses educational and other resident-related issues. We discourage research submissions, case studies, or reviews that are resident written but are not specifically related to resident or education issues, or would not be of publishable quality elsewhere in Annals. Prior to submission, please complete a brief literature review on your chosen topic to ensure that it has not recently been covered elsewhere and then submit a 300-word structured abstract. The abstract should include the following information: the proposed title and authors (not included in the 300 words); a brief background of the topic, including its significance to residents and emergency medicine; and an outline of the proposed structure of the article. Residents’ Perspective abstracts should be submitted to annalsfellow@acep.org. All submitted abstracts will be reviewed by the editorial staff. Authors submitting promising abstracts will be asked to produce a full-length manuscript for submission via Editorial Manager. The request to produce a full-length manuscript does not guarantee publication as all manuscripts must then undergo editorial review and possibly peer review comparable to other manuscripts submitted to Annals of Emergency Medicine.
Annals uses a Web-based peer review system, Editorial Manager to
receive all submissions and no longer accepts submissions by mail. Our
Web-based system provides full electronic capabilities not only for submission,
but also for peer review and status updates. It also speeds manuscript
turnaround and provides global access for authors, reviewers, and editors.
Authors, reviewers, and editors will receive automatic e-mail messages from
Editorial Manager when significant events occur. Detailed instructions and a
help file are provided at the Web site. If you have difficulties uploading your
manuscript, please contact the journal office at annemergmed@acep.org. The submission requirements of Annals of Emergency
Medicine are in accordance with the "Uniform
Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals" (with
the exception of our authorship requirements) and the "Declaration of
Helsinki: Recommendations guiding physicians in biomedical research involving
human subjects".[55]Annals uses the American Medical Association's Manual
of Style for editorial style.[2] With the growing success of Annals of Emergency Medicine, our submissions workload has continued to increase, but our staff and our editorial board has not. We thus need to maximize our efficiency and effectiveness. Periodically we get requests to offer advice or other help to authors who are preparing a submission but have not submitted a manuscript via our Editorial Manager web-based system (www.editorialmanager.com/annemergmed). Although the questions seem simple, they often are not. We have found that trying to address the concerns outside the usual editorial process and without a submitted manuscript often leads to misunderstanding and requires resources that challenge both author and Annals. We have found that informal reviews on incomplete manuscripts are problematic and create as many problems as they solve. Accordingly, we now handle inquiries in the following fashion. If you wish to know if a particular topic might be of interest to the Annals audience and cannot determine this from browsing through the journal or reading the details in Instructions for Authors on the types of manuscripts we accept, we will attempt to provide a very simple “yes or no” answer. We cannot provide more detailed guidance, however. Often, the staff will be able to provide that response, using an expert decision editor on selected cases and as workload permits. If you have a proposal or paper on which you wish input, we request you submit the version you consider optimal, consistent with Annals guidelines, and submit it formally via Editorial Manager. Annals has one of the fastest editorial turnaround times in the scientific publication world, so this will provide the most meaningful feedback in the shortest possible time. If changes are needed details on that subject will be provided you. Requests for fast tracking publication should only accompany a complete and fully submitted manuscript. Our experience is that fast tracking is often difficult because few papers do not benefit from some revision. Coupled with the lag that accompanies any publication (including electronic) means that months pass before anything can appear in print. We hope this information is helpful. The policy will allow us to concentrate our resources on what we do best: The timely and thorough review and publication of the best science and commentary in emergency medicine.
Prior Publication:Annals publishes only original work. Manuscripts must not have been
published or submitted for publication elsewhere, in whole or in part, before
submission to Annals. Should there be any doubt about prior or duplicate
publication of a manuscript being submitted to Annals, describe the
circumstances in detail in the cover letter. If you are unsure whether some
other communication on this topic might be considered duplicate publication,
describe the circumstances to us in the cover letter. Failure to do so could be
interpreted as deliberate duplicate publication. This restriction does not
apply to abstracts or brief press reports routinely published in connection
with scientific meetings, which reveal little or nothing beyond that presented
in the published meeting abstract. Elsevier provides more information about authors' rights and responsibilities at http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/authorsrights. Author Responsibilities: The authors are responsible for creating all components of the
manuscript. If writers are provided by a sponsoring or funding institution or
corporation to draft or revise the article, the name of the writer and their
sponsoring organization must be provided. Their names and contributions will be
provided with the acknowledgments. We do not recognize "honorary"
authorship (when authorship is granted as a favor to someone powerful or
prestigious who would not have qualified for it otherwise). All authors must
take responsibility in writing for the accuracy of the manuscript, and one
author must be the guarantor and take responsibility for the work as a whole. Annals'
requirements for authorship are described in more detail in a previously
published article.[56]
Changes in authorship after the initial submission require written agreement by
all authors. Statistical Consultant: All manuscripts that contain statistics must have been prepared in consultation with an individual who has expertise in the field. One of the
authors or an outside consultant may perform this analysis. The individual
responsible for statistical analysis must be specifically identified in the cover
letter, and may be listed as an author or in the acknowledgments. Conflict of Interest: Potential conflicts of interests by authors (and others) are increasingly a matter of public concern and are best dealt with by full
disclosure of relationships that might constitute a conflict of interest.
Potential conflicts of interest must be identified in the cover letter, on the
Manuscript Submission Agreement, and on the title page. The title page should
list all sources of outside funding or support of any kind for the work, or any
financial interest of the authors in the product studied or the company that
produces it. If the paper is accepted for publication, this information will be
published with the manuscript. Annals Conflict of Interest Policy for Editors and Reviewers: Purpose: To describe the policy and practice for management of
editor and reviewer conflicts of interest involving Annals of Emergency
Medicine (Annals). Policy: Annals believes that all editorial board members,
consulting editors and reviewers acting on behalf of Annals have a
fiduciary duty to Annals. A conflict of interest may occur when an
editorial board member or reviewer has personal or outside financial, business,
professional interests or other responsibilities that conflict with their
duties to Annals, including decisions and reviews of manuscripts
submitted to Annals. Editorial board members and reviewers are required
to declare to Annals any actual or potential conflicts of interest. Practice: 1. Definitions
a. Conflict of Interest: Any situation or transaction in which a person has a
direct or indirect interest such that he/she may realize a personal benefit
from the situation or transaction. This includes decisions to publish or not
publish a manuscript.
b. Financial conflict of interest includes more than nominal compensation from
an entity that has a financial interest or stake in the subject of a
publication or other activity of Annals. Nominal in value means no more
than twenty-five dollars ($25.00). Direct interest includes ownership by you or
a member of your immediate family, or an investment in a concept, product or
another party developing those concepts or products. Indirect interests involve
consulting or accepting any type of compensation for work involving the concept
or product or any company involved in the concept or product.
c. Non-financial conflict of interest includes personal (friendship, family
members, co-workers, political, religious), and intellectual (competing
research, fiduciary responsibilities) interests that would make a reasonable
reader, author, reviewer or editor feel misled or deceived if not disclosed.
These include friendship with an author, interest in competing organizations,
competing research interests, or political beliefs or religious beliefs that
could be perceived by a reasonable reader of Annals to interfere with your
objectivity. 2. Procedures:
a. Annually, members of the editorial board will provide information regarding
their potential conflicts of interest. This will include at a minimum financial
conflicts of interest as defined above.
b. Reviewers assessing a manuscript for Annals will answer the following
questions regarding that manuscript:
i. Indicate
whether there are financial competing interests, either direct or indirect.
ii. Indicate whether there are personal
competing interests.
iii. Indicate whether there are
intellectual or fiduciary conflicts.
c. Evaluation
i. Each real or
potential conflict of interest of a reviewer will be evaluated by the
decision editor for the manuscript involved, assuming the decision editor does
not have a conflict of interest.
ii. The decision editor may decide this
potential conflict does not eliminate the value of the reviewer's opinion, and
proceed, or choose another reviewer. This decision will be reported to Annals
staff for record keeping.
iii. Each decision editor is expected to
notify a deputy editor or the editor in chief if they have any potential
conflict on a manuscript they are supervising.
iv. Each real or potential conflict of
interest of a decision editor will be evaluated by the editor in chief
or his designate, and their decision reported to Annals staff for record
keeping.
d. Actions
i. Whenever a real or potential conflict of interest is
declared, the evaluator will provide in writing a decision regarding the
conflict.
ii. If a direct financial interest has been
declared, the individual will typically be recused
from participation in the refereeing of the manuscript involved.
iii. Lesser conflicts involving reviewers
will be resolved at the discretion of the supervising editor. Conflicts
involving a decision editor will be resolved by a deputy editor or the editor
in chief.
iv. When the manuscript is published, the
name of the decision editor will be published at the end of the article.
v. Permanent records will be kept of all
potential conflicts of interest and the decisions as to how to handle them.
e. Complaints
A complaint regarding potential conflict of interest of a reviewer will be
referred to the decision editor of that paper, who will review the
circumstances and send a written assessment of the merits of the complaint to
the editor in chief. A complaint regarding potential conflict of interest of an
editor will be referred to the supervising deputy editor, who will review the
circumstances and send a written assessment of the merits of the complaint to
the editor in chief. The editor in chief will make a final decision on
management of the conflict and a written summary will be sent sent to Annals staff for record keeping. In the Manuscript Submission Agreement, cite all
affiliations or involvement that might be perceived as conflicts of interest.
These include but are not limited to honoraria; education grants; speakers'
bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other
equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements with any
organization or entity with any financial interest in the subject matter or
materials used in the research. If there are no such potential conflicts, the
authors must declare this. If the manuscript is accepted, Annals will
disclose the relevant information with the article. Annals has a
detailed policy [57]
on this and other ethical issues Other Conflicts of Interest: Potential conflicts of interest that might arise on the part of
journal reviewers or editors are discussed separately.[57] Permission: Any submitted material (including figures and tables) that has been
published elsewhere must be accompanied by the written consent of the author
and publisher for reproduction in Annals.
All photographs, especially photographs of subjects showing any recognizable
features, must be accompanied by their signed release authorizing publication,
as must materials that contain personal information with respect to any
individual. The approved consent form is available here. Provide a statement of clearance to publish, if this is an institutional requirement.
Obtain written permission from any persons acknowledged by name. Articles
appear in both the print and online versions of the journal, and the wording of
the permission letter should specify permission in all forms and media. Failure
to obtain electronic permission rights may result in the images not appearing
in the online version. Access to Data: During the peer review process, Annals may require access to
the authors' original data for the sole purpose of reviewing the
submission. Annals reserves the right to review
the complete primary data on which manuscripts are based, either before
publication or, should questions arise, afterward. Annals will keep the
data confidential and not otherwise directly benefit from the advance access to
the data or the in-depth examination of them that stems from the peer review
process. Annals will not accept articles for review in which the authors did not have access to the raw data of the study or in which other parties (such as funding sources) control the final wording of the submitted manuscript or determine whether or not the results may be published. When submitting your manuscript to Annals via our Web-based peer review system, Editorial Manager, each type of submission has its
unique items for submission. The following documents are required for most
types of manuscripts submitted to Annals and should be saved as separate
electronic files for uploading to the Web system (Note: only the
Manuscript Submission Agreement can be submitted offline): Cover Letter Manuscript Submission
Agreement Author Contributions
Statement (for Original Research and Brief Research Reports only) Title Page Abstract, Article,
References We strongly suggest you
keep copies of all submission documents in the event of any problem. Cover Letter: The cover letter should identify and briefly
describe the manuscript. In addition, it should: - list the title of the article
- identify the journal category for which your manuscript is intended
- identify the corresponding author
- indicate whether it is a randomized controlled trial or other standardized study type described below; include trial registration number if applicable
- provide full information about any form of prior publication (see "Prior Publication" above)
- describe any situation that might be perceived as a conflict of interest
- list any copyright constraints
Save the cover letter as
a separate electronic file for uploading to Editorial Manager. Manuscript
Submission Agreement: A Manuscript Submission
Agreement is printed in every issue of the journal and is available here in PDF form. In the event you receive a request from the editor
asking you to revise your paper, a Manuscript Submission Agreement must be
faxed to the editorial office. All authors' signatures are required at the time
of final acceptance. Your paper will not be published until the Manuscript
Submission Agreement is received. The sections on
IRB/Informed Consent, Conflict of Interest, and Statistical Consultant should
be especially noted. Any subsequent changes to the authorship status of
individuals listed on this document will require written consent from those
authors themselves. Author
Contributions Statement: In all Original
Research and Brief Research Reports, the corresponding author must provide
information on the contributions each author has made to the article. The
purpose of this listing is to give credit where it is due. Additionally, this
will serve to clearly identify who is responsible for the quality, accuracy,
and ethics of the work, and to whom we may turn for details of the research not
included in the manuscript. Listings should be brief and to the point. The
details of our reasons for this requirement, and a discussion of the various types
of authorship (along with samples) is elaborated
elsewhere.[56] An example of a typical
description of a multicenter clinical trial might be: MBK, BD, and NT conceived
the study, designed the trial, and obtained research funding. MBK, BD, ML, and
NT supervised the conduct of the trial and data collection. EW, SF, and MG
undertook recruitment of participating centers and patients and managed the
data, including quality control. NT and BD provided statistical advice on study design and analyzed the data; ML chaired the data oversight committee. BD
drafted the manuscript, and all authors contributed substantially to its
revision. MBK takes responsibility for the paper as a whole. Save the author
contributions information as a separate electronic file for uploading to
Editorial Manager. Title
Page: On the title page, include the title; the
authors' full names, academic degrees (provide no more than 2 per author; do
not include honorary affiliations, such as fellow status in an organization),
and affiliations (including department, division, institution, city, state, and
country) at the time of the study; the name of the meeting, city, state, and
date (month and year) if the paper has been presented; acknowledgment of grants
(including grant number) or other financial support, including compensation for
consulting; trial number, when relevant; the phrase "word count"
followed by a numeric word count of the text (excluding abstract and
references), and the phrase, "Address for reprints..." followed by
the full name, address, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address of the
appropriate author. (If you do not wish reprints, simply write the phrase
"Reprints not available from the authors" in this space). The same
should be given for the Corresponding Author if it is different. Save the title
page as a separate file for uploading to Editorial Manager. Abstract, Article, and References:
The abstract, main text of your manuscript, and the references
should be combined into 1 electronic file for uploading to Editorial Manager.
Number the pages beginning with the abstract. It is optional whether any tables
or figures appear after the references or are uploaded as separate items in
Editorial Manager. For certain types of manuscripts, additional items are required. If
you are reprinting previously published tables or figures and have requested and/or
obtained permission to use these items with your Annals manuscript, you
must forward the letters granting permission to the Annals office. These
items are required at the time the manuscript is uploaded to Editorial Manager
and should be faxed to the editorial office, along with the Manuscript
Submission Agreement. If a revision of your manuscript is requested, you may be asked to
send an original hard copy of any figures you included. If the manuscript is
accepted for publication, the original hard copy of any figures may be required
if the quality of the digital (electronic) image is insufficient to reproduce
in the journal.
Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs): All RCTs must be identified as such. The CONSORT checklist
will help you make sure all key information is provided in the
manuscript and we recommend you use it for this purpose; faxing it to the
editorial office with the manuscript is optional.
Clinical Trials Registration
Annals of Emergency Medicine endorses the International Council of
Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) principles on clinical trial registration. The
registration of trials prior to patient enrollment is an important way of
improving the validity of the medical literature. Investigators should register
clinical trials in a public registry. A clinical trial is any study that
prospectively assigns human participants to intervention and comparison groups
to investigate the cause-and-effect relationship between a medical intervention
and a health outcome.
Effective January 1, 2006, Annals requires all submitted
clinical trials to include registration information or an explanation of why
registration did not occur. Absent or late registration makes a trial
substantially less desirable for publication, and Annals will consider
this together with other factors when evaluating the merits of a given
manuscript. Some papers may be rejected primarily for this reason. Trials
ultimately published will include registration information or the author's
explanation for why registration did not occur.
Investigators must use a registry that meets the following minimum
criteria:
* is available to the public at no charge
* is open to all prospective registrants
* is managed by a not-for-profit organization
* has validation mechanism of the registration data
* is electronically searchable
* contains the following information: unique identifying number,
intervention(s) and comparison(s) studied, study hypothesis, primary and
secondary outcome measures, eligibility criteria, key trial dates
(registration, anticipated or actual start of study, anticipated or actual last
follow-up, planned or actual closure to data entry, and completion of data),
target number of participants, funding source, contact information for the
principal investigators.
Authors can obtain current information on acceptable registries at www.ICMJE.org.
Permissions: Any submitted material (including
figures and tables) that has been published elsewhere must be accompanied by
the written consent of the author and publisher for reproduction in Annals.
Photographs of subjects showing any recognizable features must be accompanied
by their signed release authorizing publication, as must case reports that
provide enough unique identification of a person (other than name) to make
recognition possible. Provide a statement of clearance to publish, if this is
an institutional requirement. Obtain written permission from any persons
acknowledged by name. Articles appear in both the print and online versions of
the journal, and the wording of the permission letter should specify permission
in all forms and media. Failure to obtain electronic permission rights may
result in the images not appearing in the online version.
Institutional Review Board (IRB): Formal
written IRB approval or exemption from full review must be obtained for any
study involving human subjects or their records or animal research. In any
research on human beings, the subject's freely given informed consent should be
obtained in writing. Note this in the Methods section of the article. If your
institution exempted your study from formal review, state this in the Methods
section. If reviewers request it, you may be asked to provide documentation
from the IRB. Format: All
manuscripts should be either 1.5-spaced or double-spaced with standard margins.
Number pages consecutively, beginning with the abstract. Blinded Peer Review:
We blind reviewers to the authors' names and institutions as a
courtesy to our authors. Although this process has not been shown to affect the
quality of reviews, we believe it increases the likelihood of fairness. We
encourage authors to maintain such blinding by excluding from the abstract and
text any identifying information (eg, names,
institution, city) or first-person references to their
prior research. Authors who choose to leave this identifying information in
their submission anyway effectively waive their right to a blinded review.
Title Page: Follow the guidelines
list in Section III. Formatting and Submitting Your Manuscript. Required Submission Documents
Abstract:
For Original Research and Brief Research Reports, follow the
instructions for original research listed above. For Concepts, Review Articles,
and Case Reports, include a narrative abstract of no more than 250 words
summarizing the paper. Text:
For Original Research and Brief Research Reports, divide the text into the
sections: Introduction, Methods, Results, Limitations, and Discussion
(including a final paragraph that summarizes the conclusion); and subheadings Units of Measure:
Provide units of measure in common reference values, followed by Systeme International (SI) units in parentheses.[54] Drugs: Use
generic names and, if necessary in the Methods section, list brand names
(including the manufacturer's name, city, and state) in parentheses. Please
include the International Nonproprietary Name (INN) as well.[60] References:
Do not use the endnote or footnote function of word processing
software to generate a list of references. Number references (including
references to unpublished information) consecutively in the order of their
appearance in the manuscript. Type a list of references in their order of
mention in the text, not alphabetically, at the end of the manuscript.[61] Abbreviate
journal names according to Index Medicus.
Indicate abstracts by "abstract" in parentheses. Annals' style
is to list the first 3 authors, followed by "et al" if there are more
than 3. Accuracy of citations is the author's responsibility. Examples of
correct referencing forms are as follows: Journal Article:
Raftery KA, Smith-Coggins R, Chen
AHM. Gender-associated differences in emergency department pain management. Ann
Emerg Med. 1995;26:414-421. Book: Huddy
J. Emergency Department Design: A Practical Guide to Planning for the
Future. Dallas, TX:
American College of Emergency Physicians;
2002. Book Chapter:
Mengert TJ, Eisenberg MS. Prehospital
and emergency medicine thrombolytic therapy. In: Tintinalli JE, Ruiz E, Krome RL, eds. Emergency Medicine: A Comprehensive
Study Guide. 4th ed. New York NY:
McGraw-Hill; 1996:337-343. Courses, lectures (unpublished):
Sokolove
PE. Needlesticks and high-risk
exposure. Course lecture presented at: American College of Emergency Physicians, Scientific
Assembly, October 12, 1998; San Diego, CA. Internet: Gore L. ACEP hails
House passage of the HEALTH Act [press release]. American College of Emergency Physicians Web site.
Available at: http://www.acep.org/1,32181,0.html.
Accessed March 14, 2003. Personal Communication:
Avoid reference to personal communications, but when necessary, include the
person's name, his or her title, month, and year. A letter granting permission
to publish from the person providing the information must be included at the
time of submission. Tables:
Number tables consecutively. Refer to each table consecutively in
the text. Each table must be on a separate page after the references. Figures:
Figures (charts, graphs, photographs, etc.) and legends should be self-explanatory
and able to stand alone; the data presented in a figure should not be
duplicated in the text. Refer to each figure consecutively in the text. If you
are reporting a randomized controlled trial, your first figure should be the
one described under Participant
Flow in the CONSORT criteria. Submit each figure as a separate file; do not paste them
into the word processing document. Electronic Illustration Submission:
On initial submission to the Web-based system, figures must be
submitted in electronic format. Figures can be provided in TIFF, EPS, or PDF
format. Figures created in presentation software, such as PowerPoint,
CorelDraw, or Harvard Graphics, cannot be uploaded into the Web-based system
with your submission. If a revision of your manuscript is requested, only
figures in TIFF or EPS format (Macintosh or PC-generated) will be accepted.
Figures should be no more than 6.5 inches wide. Graphics software, such as
Photoshop and Illustrator, should be used in the creation of the figures.
Grayscale images should be at least 300 dpi. Combinations of grayscale and line
art should be at least 500 to 600 dpi. Line art (black and white or color)
should be at least 1200 dpi. If the manuscript is accepted for publication, the
original hard copy of figures may be requested if the quality of the digital
file is insufficient to reproduce in the journal. Please note: Hard copies of
figures and/or disks will not be returned. Use this checklist to ensure you've included all parts of your manuscript. It is not necessary to submit the checklist with your manuscript. 1. __ Prepared manuscript following Instructions for
Authors 2.__ Completed Manuscript Submission Agreement (fax
[972-580-0051] and mail to the editorial office)
__ Conflict of interest/funding section completed
__ IRB/Informed Consent and Statistical
Consultant sections completed
__ Signed by all authors 3. __ Cover letter including (saved as separate file for
uploading)
__ Title
__ Brief description (include submission
category)
__ Corresponding author
__ Potential conflicts of interest
__ Any potential forms of prior publication or
concurrent submission
__ Copyright constraints 4. __ Statement of author contributions (saved as separate
file for uploading) 5. __ Title page stating (saved as separate file for
uploading):
__ Title (should include the word "randomized" if
appropriate and also the trial's registration number)
__ Authors' full names
__ Academic degrees (no more than 2; no honorary
degrees)
__ Affiliations (at the time of the study, no
honorary affiliations)
__ Presentation information
__ Funding or outside support information or
financial interest in the product studied or the company that produces it
__ Word count of text (exclude abstract and
references)
__ Address for reprints and correspondence;
include e-mail address 6. __ Abstract (structured, for Original Research and Brief
Research Reports), main text of the manuscript, and references (the abstract,
text, and references can be saved as one file for uploading)
__ Numbered pages starting with abstract
__ Margins 1 inches
__ Entire text, double-spaced
__ No mention of author, institution, or city
anywhere for blinded peer review
__ IRB/Informed consent statement in Methods
section 7.__ Permissions to reproduce published material or
personal communications in all forms and media (mail to the editorial office) Failure to comply with these requirements will delay
consideration of your manuscript.
The review process begins when Annals' staff reviews
each manuscript uploaded into Editorial
Manager for completeness and adherence to submission requirements. The
manuscript is then forwarded electronically to one or more Annals'
editors, based on subject matter. These editors read the manuscript and then
either send it to expert peer reviewers or determine that it should be returned
to the author without additional peer review. Some papers are returned at this
stage because of quality issues, but also because of redundancy with material
that has been published or is in press, or lack of suitability for this
journal's readership. In such cases, a decision will be made by the editor to
reduce the burden on our expert peer reviewers, and to provide the author the
quickest response possible. The journal publishes an annual report in July listing
characteristics of the peer review process (eg,
acceptance rates of manuscripts, time from submission to decision). Each research paper that is sent out for review is sent to
a number of content experts (typically two or three) and one of four dedicated
methodology/statistical reviewers who evaluate both the quality of the science
and the quality and clarity of the presentation of the study's methods and
results. Reviewers who are sent
manuscripts are blinded to the identity of the authors or originating
institution of the manuscript, and authors do not know the identity of the
reviewers. Extensive ethical requirements[57] govern the
peer review process. The assessments of the expert peer reviewers are read by
the assigned editor, and often discussed with associate editors or the deputy
editors of the journal before a decision is made. Before any manuscript can be
accepted for publication, it is additionally reviewed and approved by the
editor in chief. After a decision is made, it is communicated to the
corresponding author by e-mail. Reviewers' detailed comments are included in
the decision letter to the author, which often also contains an editor's
summary description of some of the main reasons for the decision, or in the
case of revision, a summary of the major points that must be addressed for a
revision to be accepted. Unless otherwise stated, all original articles published in
Annals of Emergency Medicine are peer reviewed by members of the
editorial board and expert reviewers. This includes original research, case
conferences and reports, concepts and state-of-the-art reviews, special
contributions, Clinical Topic Reviews in Evidence-Based Emergency Medicine, and
Skills for Evidence-Based Emergency Care. Departments in the journal
(Correspondence; Editorials; Brief Commentaries; Health Policy Report;
Residents' Perspective; CDC Update; NHTSA Notes; Evidence-Based Emergency
Medicine "Feedback," "Updates," and "Abstracts";
Change of Shift; and Media and Book Reviews) are peer reviewed by an editorial
board member. In all Annals peer review, the identity of authors is
concealed from reviewers and vice versa. ACEP Policy Statements and Clinical
Policies are not peer reviewed by the journal. Annals
makes every effort to minimize the opportunity
for potential conflicts of interest by authors, reviewers, and editors. Authors
are required, on submission of their manuscript, to state in writing whether or
not outside funding or other form of support was received and its source, as
well as whether or not they have any financial interest in the subject of their
study. This information is published with the article. Reviewers are required
to declare any potential conflict of interest in their review of a manuscript,
and the editor then decides whether it is of a nature that requires they be
replaced with another reviewer. Editors who have a conflict of interest
regarding a manuscript are required to recuse
themselves from the decisionmaking process. The full details of these and other publication ethics
policies of this journal are available at "Journal
policy on ethics in scientific publication" . Corresponding authors who wish to withdraw a manuscript
after it has been submitted to Annals must provide a letter that is
signed by the corresponding author and indicate the corresponding author
represents the wishes of all authors in withdrawing the manuscript. Manuscripts
will not be withdrawn from consideration once they have been submitted until
the journal office receives the request in writing. Manuscripts cannot be
withdrawn after final acceptance by the journal except for reasons of
scientific error or misconduct. The vast majority of manuscripts accepted for publication
undergo some revision, although in many cases those revisions are minor changes
to comply with Annals format or the suggestions of reviewers or editors.
When revisions are requested by the editor, authors should write a detailed
cover letter responding to each of the points raised in the review, and what
changes were made to address it in the manuscript. This is best done by cutting
and pasting the reviewers' comments into the response letter and placing
responses directly below each comment. Please help our editors review your
revision by using
different formats (eg, italics vs. plain text) for
the reviewer comments and your responses. Even if the authors believe no change is necessary for a
particular critique, a brief response is required that summarizes the reasons
for that conclusion. Scientific journals vary widely in how and when they ask
authors to revise manuscripts. We provide very detailed reviewer and editor
comments that pinpoint our concerns about a manuscript needing revision. If the
revision or the cover letter does not satisfactorily address the major concerns
of the reviewers and editors by that time, rather than consume more of the
authors' and reviewers' time with attempts to solve problems that may not be
fixable, we will instead reject the paper. This does not mean that the
manuscript's limitations cannot be addressed, but it does mean that the study
in its present form is not of sufficient priority for publication. All accepted manuscripts are edited for clarity and
conformity to the American Medical Association's Manual of Style for
editorial style. Authors will receive a page proof for approval. No changes
will be accepted after the page proof is approved. Annals and the publisher are
not responsible for statements made by any contributor. Authors are responsible
for all statements made in the text, including editorial changes approved by
the author. Authors should retain copies of all submitted material. Accepted manuscripts become the property of Annals
and may not be published elsewhere without the written permission of Annals
and the Publisher,Elsevier.
Authors retain the right to reuse their published material in lectures, lecture
notes, and exhibits. Elsevier has a long tradition of liberal copyright policies
and for many years has permitted both the posting of preprints on public
servers and the posting of final papers as accepted on secure internal servers.
Now, authors of papers published in an Elsevier journal may also post their
final version, as accepted by the journal, publicly on their personal Web site
or their institutions' Web sites (including their institutional repository).
The "final version" is the author's Word (or Text or similar word
processing) file, which can be updated by the author to incorporate changes
made during the peer-review and editing processes. Authors do not need to ask Elsevier's permission to do
this. They need to include the full citation of the published article (once
known) and a link to the homepage of the journal or, better, the DOI of the
published article. The posting cannot be for commercial purposes (such as
systematic distribution or creating links for customers to articles) and it is
not permitted to post to Web sites outside of their institution (other than
their own personal Web page). Similarly, posting of the journal's PDF or HTML
files is not permitted and any exception would require permission from
Elsevier. We believe it is important to preserve the integrity of the official
record of publication at the publisher. Therefore, the final published version
as it appears in the journal (PDF or HTML) will continue to be available only
on an Elsevier site. Additional author rights and responsibilities are explained in detail at Elsevier's site http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/authorsrights. Effective May 2, 2005, The National Institutes of Health (NIH) initiated its voluntary "Public Access Policy" which requests that NIH-funded authors submit their peer-reviewed author manuscripts to PubMed Central (PMC) within 12 months of final publication. The NIH revised its policy effective April 7, 2008. The new policy requires that NIH-funded authors submit to PMC, or have submitted on their behalf, their peer-reviewed author manuscripts, to appear on PMC no later than 12 months after final publication. Elsevier will send to PMC the final peer-reviewed manuscript, which was accepted for publication and sent to Elsevier's production department, and that reflects any author-agreed changes made in response to peer-review comments. Elsevier will authorize the author manuscript's public access posting 12 months after final publication. Following the deposit by Elsevier, authors will receive further communications from the NIH with respect to the submission. Per Elsevier, authors are also welcome to post their accepted author manuscript on their personal or institutional Web site. Please note that consistent with Elsevier's author agreement, authors should not post manuscripts directly to PMC or other third party sites. Individual modifications to this general policy may apply to some Elsevier journals and society publishing partners. As we have emphasized in our communications with NIH, Elsevier and many of its society publishing partners, as well as many other societies and commercial publishers, believe that any attempt to require postings earlier than 12 months could have serious detrimental consequences for the integrity, quality and sustainability of the peer review process that has been developed over many years and currently serves as an intricate web of quality control for 1.5 million research articles worldwide each year. During the peer review process, Annals may require
access to the authors' original data for the sole purpose of better reviewing
the submission. Annals reserves the right to
review the complete primary data on which manuscripts are based, either before
publication or, should questions arise, afterward. Annals will keep the
data confidential and not otherwise directly benefit from the advance access to
the data or the in-depth examination of them that stems from the peer review
process. Additionally, Annals
may also use some submitted manuscripts for research into the methods and
effectiveness of journal peer review. If so, the manuscripts and their authors
will be kept strictly confidential and none of the content of the manuscript
publicly released. A reprint order form will be sent to the corresponding
author at the time page proofs are sent. Readers should contact authors to
obtain single copies of reprints. For multiple copies of an article, readers
may also contact Elsevier's reprint department at authorsupport.@elsevier.com. If additional information is needed, contact the Annals
editorial office at 800-803-1403 or 972-550-0911; fax 972-580-0051; or e-mail
to AnnEmergMed@acep.org. For
written editorial communication, contact:
Annals of Emergency Medicine
PO Box 619911
Dallas, TX 75261-9911
or
1125 Executive Circle
Irving, TX 75038-2522 This is the subheading web page Subheadings Subheadings aid in the organization of the paper and help
readers find specific information of interest to them. The following
subheadings should be used as appropriate in the Introduction, Methods,
Results, Limitations, and Discussion sections; subheadings with an asterisk (*)
should be included in most papers: Introduction
Background*
Importance*
Goals of This Investigation* Methods
Theoretical Model of the Problem
Study Design*
Setting*
Selection of Participants*
Interventions
Methods of Measurement*
Data Collection and Processing*
Outcome Measures*
Primary Data Analysis*
Sensitivity Analyses
Data Presentation Results
Characteristics of Study Subjects*
Main Results*
Sensitivity Analyses Limitations (no subheadings) Discussion
In Retrospect* Details of Selected SubheadingsMethods Theoretical Model of the Problem:
We consider it very helpful that readers be
able to understand your conceptualization of the problem you studied; that is,
your beliefs about what variables are involved and how they interact. We
therefore encourage some description of your Theoretical Model of the Problem
in all but the simplest (and most commonplace) research models. This
theoretical model provides a context for a discussion of the strengths and
limitations of the study design. In many papers, the theoretical model of the problem does
not require a subheading and can be discussed in the Introduction, the Methods,
or the Limitations section, as you prefer. However, if your research problem or model is complex, controversial, or very original, you may need to describe it in detail. Since this may lead to
several paragraphs of detailed explanation, this description does not need to
be included in the manuscript for print publication, but can be submitted as an
appendix (of any appropriate length) which can be published on the Web if the
paper is accepted. If such a detailed description is needed, you should include
your beliefs about the universe of relevant variables and how they interact. Do
not restrict yourself to the variables included in your investigation; include
all factors that have reasonable likelihood of being relevant. Describe how
each factor interacts with the others. It is often easier to depict these
relationships in a diagram than to specify them in prose. For some studies, a
formal causal diagram may be helpful. [62,63] For example, a paper investigating what determines whether patients get the follow-up
care recommended at the conclusion of their ED visit should begin with a
consideration of all factors that might make someone keep or miss their
follow-up. This model might include variables related to demographics,
insurance status, health care system characteristics, patient health status,
patient health beliefs, and patient opportunity cost.[64] Study Design:
Describe the study design using standard terms. The preceding link takes you to the JAMA glossary of useful terms for
describing study design. Randomized trials should be described in a manner that
meets CONSORT requirements, including a Figure 1 in the
manuscript and a completing a CONSORT checklist (you need not submit it). Setting:
Describe where the study took place (without compromising blinding for your
initial submission.) Describe all characteristics of the setting that could
affect the external validity (generalizibility) of
the findings. Selection of Participants:
Describe how participants were identified, screened, and enrolled.
Remember to consider all participants including patients, providers, and
outcome assessors, as appropriate. Specifically identify inclusion and
exclusion criteria. Chart reviews should follow guidelines for this type of investigation.[24] Interventions:
Describe any interventions in sufficient detail to permit
replication. Describe any blinding of subjects, providers, outcome assessors,
or data analysts. Describe methods for determining whether the intervention was
actually received. Methods and Measurements:
Discuss how and when measurements were made. Discuss the precision and
reliability of the measurements. How were spurious or missing measurements
handled? Data Collection and Processing:
Discuss who collected the data and how they collected it (eg, audio and/or video recording, unstructured interview, structured questionnaire, extract from database).
Discuss how data were entered, checked, and cleaned. We encourage researchers
to use databases instead of spreadsheets for data entry and analysis as the
inadvertent introduction of errors is more likely in the latter. Outcome Measures:
Describe the study's outcome measures. Explain the rationale for
choosing these measures and how they related to the theoretical construct under
study. Explain any decisions regarding whether to handle the outcome as a continuous
or categorical variable and, if categorical, explain the rationale for the
chosen cutpoints. When possible, use outcomes that
have been previously validated, or provide evidence of your own efforts to
validate the measure. Emphasize patient-centered outcomes (eg,
pain, days off from work, death) over intermediate outcomes (eg, change in FEV1, change in degrees of flexion of spine without pain). Primary Data Analysis:
Describe the primary analysis in considerable detail. Relate the
analytic strategy to the theoretical model of the problem. Describe what was
done and why it was done. Specify any software that was used (including the
name of the software and the manufacturer's city and state). Provide references
for any non-routine analytic methods that were used. Your analytic strategy should
show that you are familiar with basic, generally accepted guidelines for
certain types of analytic techniques. Deviation may be appropriate or even
desirable in some circumstance, but you should justify that decision. Examples
of cases for which generally accepted principles exist are: -Baseline comparisons in
randomized trials[65]
-Comparing 2 methods of measurement
[66,67]
-Subgroup analyses
[68-70]
-Clustered randomization and observations[71-76]
-Multiple comparisons
[77-80]
-Multivariate methods (eg,
modeling, stratification)
[81-84] Rules to follow when preparing a manuscript for submission to our journal are:
-Use theory, not statistical significance, to
develop models.
[32]
-Emphasize the estimation of effect over
hypothesis testing.
[35]
-Focus on the magnitude of differences, not their
statistical significance.[35]
-Show your actual data in preference to summaries
of your data.
[32]
-Generally avoid statistical testing,
particularly testing of baseline characteristics.[35]
-Define the unit of analysis and use it when
analyzing the data.
[75] Sensitivity Analysis:
We encourage the inclusion of formal sensitivity analyses that
explore how results change when assumptions about the investigations are
modified.[33,34]
For example, a "best-case" analysis of a randomized trial might
assume that there was perfect randomization, perfect compliance with assigned
treatment, outcome assessment of every randomized subject, and perfect
measurement of outcome. A sensitivity analysis would examine how results change
when these assumptions are relaxed (eg, the results
are recalculated assuming that outcomes were misclassified in 5% of subjects or
that subjects who dropped out were 10% sicker that those who did not). These
analyses should examine all of the relevant potential biases over their likely
ranges. The Methods section should describe what sensitivity analyses were
done, why they were done, and how they were done. The Results section should
present the results of these analyses. This is most easily done with tables or
graphs. Data Presentation: Inform
the reader about how data will be presented. Explain the rationale for any
stratification or pooling. | 
