Instructions for Authors (last updated 2009)
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS
ABSTRACT
section subheadings for CLINICAL INVESTIGATIONS AND BASIC INVESTIGATIONS (HUMAN STUDIES) should include:
This should be in complete sentences. For example, "this study was a prospective, observational study using a convenience sample of patients with …, " "retrospective, cohort analysis of …, " "prospective, randomized, double-blinded interventional trial of, " etc. Note the primary outcome measure in this section. A statement of IRB review/approval/exemption from informed consent or full committee review should be made here.
Include site of study. If in the ED, describe the type of ED and general patient volume (e.g., "a teaching hospital ED with 35,000 visits annually"). Also include the general population demographics, inclusion/exclusion criteria, study dates (i.e., period(s) of patient enrollment).
Describe the method of patient enrollment (i.e., consecutive, convenience, random, population sampling); discuss any consent process; note any interventions used; describe any blinding or randomization regarding treatments, purpose of the study, or data collection; discuss if and how standard treatment was administered (describe such standard treatment separate from interventions used specifically for study purposes), and placebo specifics (how prepared, delivered) and the reasoning for such (especially if the study is an analgesia trial).
Discuss the data collection. Clarify who collected the data. Describe any special data collection techniques or instruments. Provide manufacturer's name and address along with brand name and model number for equipment used in the study. Denote what instructions or training the data collectors were given.
Summarize how the major outcome variables were analyzed (clearly define outcome measures). If multiple definitions must be provided, include a separate subheading for definitions. Note which outcomes were analyzed with which statistical tests. Clearly define any criterion standards (do not use the phrase "gold" standard). Note any important subgroup analyses and whether there were planned before data collection or arose after initial data evaluation. Denote any descriptive statistics used. Provide 95% confidence intervals for estimates of test performance where possible; they should be described as 95% CI=X to X. Discuss sample size estimates. Note significance levels used.
section subheadings for SURVEYS should include:
Describe in complete sentences. For example, "survey of EM residency directors in the US regarding…" Clarify the source of the surveyed population (e.g., "mailing list from AAMC"). Identify primary goal of survey. Denote any IRB approval/exemption from informed consent or full committee review.
Describe the survey content. Clarify what general instructions the participants were given. Provide definitions of major outcome criteria. Summarize the information asked and the form of response (e.g., yes/no, true/false). If a scale was used, describe it (i.e., for a Likert scale, state how many options available on the scale). Also note any multiple choice, essay, etc formats. Describe measures taken to ensure participant confidentiality. Describe the method used to administer the survey, and measures taken to increase response rate.
Describe any associations sought and describe statistical analyses used. Denote level of statistical significance. Note any important subgroup analyses. Denote descriptive statistics.
section subheadings for BASIC INVESTIGATIONS (NON-HUMAN STUDIES) should include:
Use complete sentences. For example, "this was a controlled (canine, porcine, murine, etc.) trial of…" Note any blinding, dose escalation or cross-over design. Identify primary goal of investigation. Note approval of appropriate Animal Use/Research Committees.
Include a description of animal breed, source, size, age, and any housing requirements for acclimatization.
Include any animal preparation, sedation or analgesia and instrumentation. Summarize any pilot data. Describe the specific interventions for the study groups. Denote when measurements were made (use an illustrative figure such as a protocol timeline, when possible).
Specify which measurements were made at which times, and describe any blinding of investigator to the intervention. Denote special monitoring equipment by equipment brand name/model number plus manufacturer name and address. Denote tolerance of equipment. Note any standardization of measurements, etc.
Summarize the analysis techniques used for different outcome variables and discuss sample size limitations. Note any important subgroup analyses and whether these were planned before data collection. Denote descriptive statistics.
Describe the success of the application of the protocol. For example, was blinding of the investigators, patients, etc, successful? Was planned enrollment achieved? What was the Kappa value for interrater reliability? How often were data pieces missing, and how were these handled? Describe the results obtained from the methods employed. In human clinical trials, provide a flow chart tracking patient groups and providing the current N throughout the protocol. Indicate drop-out rates, denominators used for calculations, and numeric results, with methods of statistical analysis, described. Avoid duplicate results in both the text and in tables or figures, and be sure all tables or figures are referred to in the text. Be sure the numeric results in the text, the abstract, and the tables or figures are consistent.
Provide a context for the findings of the study, related to existing knowledge in the area. The literature context must be unbiased, and include any existing evidence that supports or refutes your results. When differences exist, attempts should be made to explain them. Indicate why your study has relevance to emergency medicine, and what groups remain for future research.
What limitations must be noted regarding your methods, or the interpretation of your results? Were these anticipated, are they significant, can they be explained? What future research can address these limitations, and is it important to do so?
Answer the study question. Avoid simply repeating your results. Can you offer recommendations based on your study?
SOME FINAL TIPS FOR WRITERS – AN EDITOR'S PERSPECTIVE
The following suggestions are based on common errors we have encountered in the processing of manuscripts submitted to AEM. While many of these are simply common sense, they represent common errors we have seen even from the most experienced of authors. We provide them in hopes of making the process of writing easier for authors, and the process of reviewing easier for us. (reproduced in part and with permission from the Emergency Medicine: An Academic Career Guide)
Be concise in your presentation, especially your discussion. It is not necessary to re-present or re-prove what is common knowledge on a topic; instead, focus your discussion to put your results into the context of what is currently known. Writing in an " if- then " manner can help with this.
Failure to follow the Instructions for Authors can result in delays in the peer review of your work or outright rejection before peer review.
Although grammatical, typographical and spelling errors are usually corrected by copyeditors in the final version of accepted papers, your manuscript will not be corrected before it goes out for peer review.
. Authors sometimes become so involved in the writing of the paper that a step in the logical development of the paper is missed. This can be avoided if a colleague not involved with the writing of the paper is asked to read the paper before it is submitted.
Common inaccuracies in presentation include 1) numbers presented in the tables or the text do not add up to what the author states they should, 2) there is a discrepancy between the abstract and the manuscript, 3) there are discrepancies between various parts of the paper, 4) the discussion is not related to the results, 5) tables and graphs are referred to in the text but not included in the submission, 6) tables and graphs are included with the submission but not referred to in the text, 7) the conclusions overstate the results , 8) the conclusions do not answer the study question, and 9) the title is inaccurate.
Authors occasionally believe that a requested revision is not justified. In this circumstance, the author may decide not to address the issue. If this is done, the author must justify in the cover letter why the request has not been addressed.
An extensive discussion of this important topic is beyond the scope of this document, but some of the most important concepts are presented above.
Anyone included as an author on a paper should be able to take personal responsibility for its contents and be able to defend it in a forum. This requires that the authors have seen the final submitted version of the paper, and not just the original submission.
8. Be a responsible author.
7. Adhere to scientific and writing ethics.
6. Don't ignore requests for revisions.
5. Proof read for accuracy.
4. Proof read for logic
3. Proof read your final submission.
2. Follow the instructions.
1.Write to share your message and not to protect yourself during peer review.
CONCLUSIONS
LIMITATIONS
DISCUSSION
FOR ALL ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Data Analysis
Measurements
Study Protocol
Animal Subjects
Study Design
METHODS
Data Analysis
Survey Content and Administration
Study Design and Population
METHODS
Data Analysis
Measurements
Study Protocol
Study Setting and Population
Study Design
INTRODUCTION
RESULTS
METHODS