Information for Authors

Reporting Guidelines and Best Practices

There are numerous resources available that can aid authors and journals in improving article quality. As examples, some resources for authors to reference are:

For a more comprehensive list see the Research and Reporting Guidelines list maintained by NLM. This resource lists the major biomedical research reporting guidelines that provide advice for reporting research methods and findings. They usually “specify a minimum set of items required for a clear and transparent account of what was done and what was found in a research study, reflecting, in particular, issues that might introduce bias into the research” (Adapted from the EQUATOR Network Resource Centre). The chart also includes editorial style guides for writing research reports or other publications.

 

Publishing Schedule

Upon approval manuscripts will be e-published ahead of print. Advances in Metabolic Health (AMH) releases e-Published batches every two weeks. Once e-published the manuscript will be selected in a future print issue based on topical fit in the editorial calendar at the digression of the editors, oldest articles are published first. All articles are published open access. AMH is published 6 times per year (January, March, May, July, September, November).

 

Types of Manuscripts to Submit

Following is an overview of the types of articles Advances in Metabolic Health publishes.

Peer-Reviewed Submissions

ORIGINAL RESEARCH MANUSCRIPTS
Original Research – Original research is often but not always a randomized clinical trial (RCT). Intervention studies, cohort studies, case-control studies, epidemiologic assessments, observational studies reported according to the STROBE guidelines (www.strobe-statement.org), and surveys are other examples of original research. A clinical trial is a study that prospectively (and often randomly) assigns human participants to intervention or comparison groups to evaluate the cause-and-effect relationship between an intervention and an outcome. All clinical trials must be registered before submission of a manuscript based on the trial, and the registration information should be included along with the submission. Trial registries include but are not limited to the following: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. All randomized clinical trials should include a CONSORT flow diagram and checklist (available at www.consort-statement.org). Original research manuscripts should include an abstract that states one or more study objectives; the study setting, participant information with inclusion and exclusion criteria; the key features of any intervention(s); the primary outcome measures; the study results; discussion (including limitations) placing the results in context with the published literature; and conclusions. Data included in research reports must be original and should be as timely as possible. A structured abstract is required. See instructions for preparing structured abstracts below. Recommended length: 3000 to 5000 words (not including abstract, tables, figures, and references).

Brief Reports and Pilot Studies – These are short reports of original studies or evaluations or unique reports of case series. A structured abstract is required. Recommended length is between 750 and 2000 words (not including abstract, tables, figures, and references). They should include approximately 10 to 20 references and no more than 4 tables/figures. Authors should follow all requirements for original research manuscripts (see above) when submitting brief reports or pilot studies, including the understanding that they have not been published or submitted elsewhere.

REVIEW MANUSCRIPTS
Narrative Reviews – Narrative reviews usually address broad topic areas rather than a few tightly formulated questions. Narrative reviews often do not have a Methods section to describe the process of selecting the studies that the author discusses in the text. Narrative reviews tend to lecture about a topic and may suggest future research.

Systematic Review (Including Meta-analysis) – Systematic reviews educate by describing evidence to the reader. They are critical assessments of research literature pertaining to clinical topics, emphasizing factors such as cause, diagnosis, treatment, and therapy. Articles or data sources should be systematically reviewed according to clear criteria, preferably with a protocol written in advance. The data sources should be current and a structured abstract is required. If a meta-analysis is done it should follow QUORUM or MOOSE guidelines.

CASE REPORTS
Case reports generally use one (or more) specific case(s) to illustrate an interesting outcome, most commonly with a unique or innovative treatment. Case reports are designed to inform and offer innovative therapeutic approaches. Practitioners should present a clear diagnostic situation whenever possible and then explain the treatment. The case report should include the history, examination, investigations, case management, and outcome. The discussion section that follows should educate the reader about the treatment that was used. Case reports usually range from 600 to 1500 words and contain between 5 and 10 references. Pictures or graphs may be helpful. Consent for publication must be obtained from the patient. Please follow the CARE guidelines.

RESEARCH LETTERS
Research letters reporting original research are generally between 600 and 1500 words of text and may include 1 table or figure and no more than 8 references. They may have multiple authors; others who contributed to the study may be indicated in an acknowledgment, with their permission, along with a statement indicating their contribution to the research. Letters must not duplicate other published material. In general, research letters should be divided into the following sections: an introduction entitled “To the Editor” followed by Methods, Results, and Comments. Research letters need not include an abstract but otherwise should follow all of the guidelines for original research outlined elsewhere in the author guidelines. Research letters are sent out for peer review.

HYPOTHESES
Critical assessments of emerging therapies discussing potential mechanisms of action and implications for the practice of medicine and the integration of emerging therapies into the healthcare delivery system are encouraged. Manuscripts usually contain between 3000 and 6000 words and are accepted for consideration with the understanding that they have not been published or submitted elsewhere. These manuscripts are peer reviewed.

 

Non–Peer Reviewed Submissions

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letters discussing a recent article will be considered if they are received within 6 weeks of the article’s publication. Letters may have no more than 5 authors and should not exceed 500 words of text and 7 references unless approved by the editor in advance. The letter should include the names and academic degrees (if any) for all authors, as well as the e-mail address for the corresponding author. Letters will be published at the discretion of the editors and shortened or edited for style and content.

AUTHOR REPLY LETTERS
Replies by authors should not exceed 600 words of text and 8 references and should be submitted by one of the original authors of the manuscript.

BOOK REVIEWS
Book reviews are written by request, are generally from 300 to 400 words, and follow the structured format outlined below.

  1. Audience: In a phrase or two, describe the field of medicine to which the book applies (eg, clinical research, oncology, cardiology) and the types of health professionals who would most benefit from reading the book.
  2. Purpose: A brief overview indicating the author’s goal in writing the book.
  3. Overview/Highlights: A general summary of the contents of the book, focusing on where the book succeeds in relating new and valuable information to readers.
  4. Limitations: A brief summary of the book’s weaknesses, such as information that should have been covered, unsubstantiated claims, cumbersome writing style.
  5. Commentary: Final thoughts on the book, perhaps including other books of interest on the same topic and a discussion of how this book compares to those. Information already addressed in the book review should not be repeated here.

 

Manuscript Formatting And Other Details

Manuscript Content
Your manuscript should be formatted according to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (www.icmje.org). You may also find the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement helpful for describing a randomized, controlled trial (www.consort-statement.org).

Authorship
Disputes over authorship, and multiauthorship in particular, are better resolved early on, preferably before a study begins. The author who is designated as “corresponding author” when the manuscript is submitted will be asked to approve editorial changes to the article on behalf of all authors prior to publication of the article.

Ethics
When human experimentation is being reported, include a statement to confirm that the work was done in accordance with the appropriate institutional review body and carried out with the ethical standards set forth in the Helsinki Declaration of 1975. When laboratory animals are used, there should be a statement that the work was carried out according to the National Research Council’s protocol for, or any national law on, the care and use of laboratory animals.

Abstracts
Abstracts should be approximately 250 to 300 words for original research and reviews and are used to summarize the paper. Abstracts are not required for hypotheses, research letters, case reports, editorials, columns or commentaries, book reviews, or other intermittent special publications. Abstracts for original research and reviews should include the following headings whenever possible: Background/Context, Objective, Methods/Design, Setting, Participants, Interventions, Primary Outcome Measures, Results, Conclusions, and Trial Registry information. The structure for abstracts is as follows:

  • Background: One or two sentences explaining why this study is necessary and important.
  • Primary Study Objective: What are the primary study objectives?
  • Methods/Design: Outline the key elements of the study design, including a sample size calculation.
  • Setting: Where the study was done (how many sites, what kind of sites, etc).
  • Participants: Who participated in the study as well as their key demographic characteristics, the dropout rate, adverse events, etc.
  • Intervention: The key features of the intervention must be described. Trademarked product names should not be used.
  • Primary Outcome Measures: What outcome measures were used to measure the primary study objectives. These should be specified in advance (in the trial registry, for example).
  • Results: The results of the primary outcomes of the study, such as risk, confidence intervals, numbers needed to treat, or P-values, should be quantified and reported.
  • Conclusion: Conclusions supported by the results should be discussed as well as the clinical implications.

 

References
Start references on a separate page following the text, and number them consecutively in the text by order of appearance. In the text, designate reference numbers either as superscript or on the line in parentheses. (Do not use the footnote or endnote function in Word.) Abbreviate journal titles according to Index Medicus. If in doubt, cite complete journal name. Follow the format and punctuation set forth in the AMA Manual of Style, 11th ed, as illustrated in the following examples. Do not use periods in abbreviations of journal titles. List all authors, but if the number exceeds 6, list the first 3 names followed by “et al.”

Journal article

Pert CB, Dreher HE, Ruff MR. The psychosomatic network: foundations of mind-body medicine. Altern Ther Health Med. 1998;4(4):30-41.

Book chapter

Schiffman JD. Immunology of influenza. In: Cane MB, ed. Viruses and Influenza. Orlando, Fla: Academic Press; 1990:191-196.

Book

Avery GB. Neonatology: Pathophysiology and Management of the Neonate. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: JB Lippincott; 1987:77-80.

 

Tables
Number and title tables consecutively in the order in which they are mentioned in the text. Each column within a table should have a heading. Define abbreviations in the legend.

Figures
If you are unable to submit figures electronically, submit 1 copy by post. On the back of the copy note the figure number, last name of the primary author, and orientation (top/left/right). Include the name of the photographer or illustrator, if applicable. In clinical photographs in which the patient can be recognized, include a release signed by the patient or guardian granting permission to publish the photograph. If permission is not obtained, the photograph will be edited to ensure anonymity.

Permissions
If any material in the manuscript is from a prior copyrighted publication, a letter of permission from the copyright holder to reproduce the material should be included. If a photo or illustration does not belong to the author, it must be accompanied by a letter of permission from the copyright holder to reproduce it. Those cited in personal communications (verbal or written) also must grant the author written permission for the use of their names and/or material.

Proprietary Interest
All authors must submit a completed and signed Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form disclosing any financial or proprietary interest in the subject matter or materials discussed (eg, employment, stock ownership, honoraria, etc). Manuscripts will not be accepted unless all authors have completed and submitted this form.

Drug Names
Use full generic names only, including inactive moiety. The trade name of a drug may be cited in parentheses the first time the generic name appears.

Abbreviations and Symbols
With the exception of standard units of measurements, avoid abbreviations. Do not use abbreviations in the title or abstract. When using a large number of abbreviations, list them in a table.

Reprints
Upon publication, authors will receive 2 complimentary copies of the issue in which their article appears. If you wish to purchase additional copies or reprints, notify the managing editor when you grant final approval of your edited article.

Submitting Manuscripts/Manuscript Processing

All manuscripts must be submitted electronically to mary@innovisionhm.com. They are usually acknowledged and assigned a manuscript number within a week of receipt in our office. The manuscript number should be used in all future communications.

Include your mailing address, phone number, and fax number in your e-mail message as well as an electronic version (Microsoft Word preferred) of each item listed in the checklist below. Tables and figures should be included as attachments if possible. If they cannot be sent as attachments, please send a high-quality hard copy by post.

Manuscripts should be submitted as a series of files including a cover letter, the manuscript (including title page, the abstract, manuscript text, and references), and all tables, figures, and legends. Please submit a signed copy of the Copyright Transfer agreement. Most submissions are subject to peer review (see details below). Presentation of data at scientific meetings does not preclude submission.

Peer Review
The majority of manuscripts submitted to us are put through peer review. The time from receipt of initial submission to final editorial decision takes an average of 3 to 6 months. Manuscripts that our editors believe warrant rapid publication (most commonly original research) will be peer-reviewed as quickly as possible, with a goal of publication of within 2 months after receipt of the manuscript. We follow the International Committee for Medical Journal Editors (www.icmje.org) on publication guidelines and encourage authors to follow their recommendations if possible.

One of the journal’s editorial staff will read your paper to assess the validity, originality, and significance of the work presented. Our acceptance rate is low; an important feature of our selection process is that many papers are turned away on the basis of in-house evaluation alone. That decision will be communicated quickly. Positive in-house reviews by the editorial staff are followed by peer review. If the manuscript is sent out for peer review, you will be informed by the editorial coordinator. Reviews are blinded; that is, authors and reviewers are not identified by name during the review process. After the manuscript has been reviewed, you will be informed whether it has been accepted for publication, rejected, or requires revision.

Revisions
Revisions may be requested for submissions that pass the initial review stages. This does not constitute acceptance for publication but is an invitation to strengthen your paper for further scrutiny. After revision, your paper may again be subjected to a full peer review, usually by the same reviewers. The reviewers’ comments must be answered or rebutted in the text of the manuscript (where applicable) and in a separate, accompanying letter to facilitate the review of your revised manuscript. Some of the comments will be technical and some substantive; all should be addressed.

Decision
You will be notified via e-mail of the final decision about your submission.

Accepted Manuscripts
At the time your paper is accepted for publication, you may refer to it as being “in press.” No publication date will be set at this time; an edited version of your manuscript will be sent to you for approval, and you will be notified when a publication date has been established. We increasingly publish articles online ahead of print publication. You will be informed at least a week in advance of the online publication dates. The online article is identical to the print version and is citable by the digital object identifier (DOI).

Rejected Manuscripts
Sometimes we make mistakes in rejecting a manuscript, and if you think we have, we would like to hear an appeal from you for us to reconsider our decision. In your appeal, please tell us why you think our decision to reject your manuscript was mistaken and set out your specific responses to comments you feel are the main reason for your manuscript being rejected.

Retractions
Advances in Metabolic Health follows COPE Retraction Guidelines and a retraction will be issued to alert readers to major errors or breaches of scholarly integrity. An article maybe retracted by Sage if after an investigation and editorial assessment, the results or the conclusions cannot be relied upon for any reason.

Advances in Metabolic Health may retract an article if:

  • The article contains honest errors or errors due to research or publication misconduct,
  • If the article was accepted as a result of compromised peer review,
  • If authors have been unable to satisfactorily resolve the concerns or queries raised on their article,
  • If authors cannot be verified, are unable to provide underlying raw data and/or images, or are unable to provide evidence they undertook the research themselves.

 

Authors may choose to request retraction of their own article by emailing mary@innovisionhm.com. These requests will be reviewed by Sage and the Journal Editor and may be declined if they are not in line with COPE guidance and Advances in Metabolic Health policies, or if they have been made during a Advances in Metabolic Health-initiated investigation.

All retraction notices will explain the reasons for retraction and will be linked to the original article. Authors will be notified and given the opportunity to provide comments. We do not seek or require author approval for retractions and the decision to retract will be reconsidered only if new evidence comes to light.

Advances in Metabolic Health may choose to publish materials, figures or data provided by authors as part of the investigation to notify readers if necessary. Advances in Metabolic Health may notify the authors’ institution(s) or other journals/publishers if multiple articles are affected.

Corrections, Errors & Erratums
A correction notice will be issued when it is necessary to correct an error or omission which may be integral to the reading, understanding or interpretation of the article.

Any errors of factual significance or major errors will be highlighted with the publication of a separate corrigendum (author error) or erratum (publisher error) highlighting the changes, provided the scholarly validity and integrity of the article remain intact. If the article is updated, a correction footnote will highlight the change(s) and reference the corrigendum or erratum. All corrigenda and errata will be linked to the original article.

Multiple major errors or omissions in the article that may impact the validity of the research will be investigated by Advances in Metabolic Health in collaboration with the Journal Editor in line with COPE guidelines. If appropriate, a corrigendum will be written in collaboration with authors, journal editor and Advances in Metabolic Health.

Minor errors in an article may be highlighted using a footnote within the corrected article to highlight the change(s).

Article Processing Fee (APC)

All articles published in Advances in Metabolic Health (AMH) are subject to payment of an article processing charge (APC) in full open access. An article processing charge (APC) of $1500.00 (US Dollars) applies to papers accepted after peer review. This article processing charge is to cover the costs of peer review, copyediting, typesetting, long-term archiving, and journal management. Once accepted, you’ll receive an invoice that can be paid by credit card, bank transfer, or through institutional channels. Only official invoices issued by InnoVision Professional Media are valid. We do not authorize any third party to collect the APCs. InnoVision Professional Media is the sole service provider and cannot be held liable for actions by third parties.

Your article may be eligible for a full or partial waiver due to our participation in initiatives to increase accessibility to publication across the international academic community.