how to write a cover letter when submitting a manuscript

How to write a cover letter for journal submission

Download our cover letter template.

When you submit your article to a journal, you often need to include a cover letter. This is a great opportunity to highlight to the journal editor what makes your research new and important. The cover letter should explain why your work is perfect for their journal and why it will be of interest to the journal’s readers.

When writing for publication, a well-written cover letter can help your paper reach the next stage of the manuscript submission process – being sent out for  peer review . So it’s worth spending time thinking about how to write a cover letter to the journal editor, to make sure it’s going to be effective.

To help you, we’ve put together a guide to explain how to write a cover letter for journal article submission. You will receive cover letter instructions of what you should include and what you shouldn’t, and a word template cover letter.

Ready to submit?

Taylor & Francis Editing services has a high quality premium editing package to make you feel confident to submit.

Customized cover letter

Feedback on original writing

Complete language check

Extensive revisions.

What should my cover letter include?

Before you start to write, please check the  instructions for authors  (IFAs) of your chosen journal, as not all journals will require one. You should also check the IFAs for any journal specific information on what to include. This may include a list of relevant articles written by you or your co-authors that have been or are currently being considered for publication in other journals.

Key points to include in your letter to the editor:

Editor’s name (you can usually find this on the journal page on  Taylor & Francis Online ).

Your manuscript’s title.

Name of the journal you are submitting to.

Statement that your paper has not been previously published and is not currently under consideration by another journal.

Brief description of the research you are reporting in your paper, why it is important, and why you think the readers of the journal would be interested in it.

Contact information for you and any  co-authors .

Confirmation that you have no  competing interests  to disclose.

Things to avoid:

Don’t copy your abstract into your cover letter, instead explain in your own words the significance of the work, the problem that is being addressed, and why the manuscript belongs in the journal.

Don’t use too much jargon or too many acronyms, keep language straightforward and easy to read.

Avoid too much detail – keep your cover letter to a maximum of one page, as an introduction and brief overview.

Avoid any spelling and grammar errors and ensure your letter is thoroughly proofed before submitting.

Click to enlarge your PDF on key information to include in your cover letter .

Cover letter template

If you need further help to write a cover letter for a journal, you can download and use our sample template as a guide.

You might find that the submission system for your chosen journal requires your cover letter to be submitted into a text box rather than as a separate document, but it is still a good idea to write a draft first to make sure you have included everything.

Always make sure to check the journal’s  instructions for authors  for any specific additional information to include.

Submission ready

Use our submission checklist  to make sure you’ve included everything you need to.

If you need more guidance, take a look at our other  information and resources to help you make your submission .

Rapid constructive feedback

Consider the Taylor & Francis Rapid Technical Review service to help you meet your deadline, through peer-review-like comments on your manuscript.

Related resources

Journal submission support

Guide to improve your submission experience

Article submission checklist

Publishing tips, direct to your inbox

Expert tips and guidance on getting published and maximizing the impact of your research. Register now for weekly insights direct to your inbox.

• Research Process
• Manuscript Preparation
• Manuscript Review
• Publication Process
• Publication Recognition
• Language Editing Services
• Translation Services

How to Write a Cover Letter for Your Manuscript? Here are the Tips and Examples

• 3 minute read

Table of Contents

A cover letter is often the first thing an editor reads when reviewing your submission. As your first pitch to the editor, the cover letter helps them gauge the suitability of your manuscript for publication in their journal. Imagine your work shaping the future of your field, gathering citations, and sparking discussions. A powerful cover letter is thus the first step to making that vision into a reality.   

In this article, we will guide you through the process of writing an effective cover letter and explain how you can get it right every time with examples. First, let us get started with the basics!  

Getting the Basics Right  

When writing a cover letter, it is crucial to address the editor by their correct and complete name¹ . If there are multiple co-editors, you can address your letter to the right person, based on their specialization or designated responsibilities. If unsure, it is okay to go with a more general salutation, such as “Dear Editors”¹ .   

Presenting your Research  

Provide a clear and concise title for your submission and specify whether it is an article, communication, review, perspective, or a manuscript belonging to some other category. If the journal guideline recommends, consider including a list of all authors in the manuscript.   

After covering the preliminary information, briefly explain your paper’s central theme or focus to give the editor an idea of its contents. Ensure this stays a brief outline, without going into too much detail.   

Conveying the Importance of Your Work  

How you communicate the impact of your work can make or break your cover letter. To make a strong impression on the editor, articulate the significance of your research clearly, emphasizing its relevance to the field. Additionally, show how your work aligns with the journal’s scope and mission.  

Including a Formal Declaration  

Some journals require a set of declarations from you to ensure that your manuscript adheres to its ethical code and the larger ethical standards of scientific publishing. Here are the required declarations in a cover letter:  

• Originality of work:  
• Confirm that your work is original and has not been published elsewhere. This tells the editor your research is unique.  
• Conflict of interest statement:  
• Be clear about any potential conflicts of interest. This includes any personal, financial, or professional connections that might affect your research.  
• Funding source (if applicable):  
• Tell where your research funding came from, if any. This includes any support or grants from organizations.   

Including Personal Suggestions for Reviewers on a Separate Page (optional)  

If there is no part of the submission process that collects researcher suggestions for reviewers, and there are special requests from the researcher for reviewers (e.g., recommending the inclusion or suggesting the exclusion of a specific reviewer, etc.), you may also make a note about this in the cover letter.  

Combining these five points, here is a good example of a cover letter for researchers’ reference:  

(This image is intended to demonstrate the norms of formatting and tone of expression in a cover letter, it is to be used only by the researcher as a reference in writing² .)  

Conclusion  

A strong cover letter can go a long way in ensuring success for researchers looking to publish their manuscripts! Your cover letter is the opening act, setting the stage for how editors perceive your manuscript. So, look at it not as just another formality but as a crucial opportunity to make a strong impression.   

Understanding what to include, what is optional, and what is best left unsaid can be tricky. That is where our team of experts at Elsevier Language Services can step in. We will provide personalized recommendations and expert guidance to help you craft a cover letter that perfectly complements your manuscript. Reach out to us today to make a great first impression and embark on a successful academic journey!  

Reference  

• Nicholas, D. (2019). How to choose a journal and write a cover letter. Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia, 13(5), 35. https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.sja_691_18  
• Loyola University Chicago. (n.d.). JCSHESA Sample Cover Letter. https://ecommons.luc.edu/jcshesa/cover_letter_template.pdf  

Page-Turner Articles are More Than Just Good Arguments: Be Mindful of Tone and Structure!

Submission 101: What format should be used for academic papers?

You may also like.

Publishing Biomedical Research: What Rules Should You Follow?

Writing an Effective Cover Letter for Manuscript Resubmission

Journal Acceptance Rates: Everything You Need to Know

Research Data Storage and Retention

How to Find and Select Reviewers for Journal Articles

How to Request the Addition of an Extra Author Before Publication

Paper Rejection: Common Reasons

How to Write a Journal Article from a Thesis

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

How to Write a Cover Letter for a Journal Submission

Feeling behind on ai.

You're not alone. The Neuron is a daily AI newsletter that tracks the latest AI trends and tools you need to know. Join 400,000+ professionals from top companies like Microsoft, Apple, Salesforce and more. 100% FREE.

Submitting a manuscript to a journal can be an exciting and challenging process. While the focus is often on the research itself, submitting a polished and well-crafted cover letter is just as important. A cover letter is your opportunity to introduce yourself, your research, and your manuscript to the editor-in-chief. It should be brief, professional, and highlight why your research is significant.

Understanding the Purpose of a Cover Letter

Before diving into the specifics of how to write a cover letter, it is important to understand why it is necessary. The cover letter acts as a first impression to the editor-in-chief. It provides an opportunity to introduce your manuscript and provide an overview of the research you have conducted. Additionally, the cover letter can help demonstrate your qualifications for the research and why it should become a part of the journal's publication.

Writing a cover letter is an essential part of the academic publishing process. It is a chance to showcase your research and communicate why it is important to the scientific community. A well-written cover letter can make the difference between your manuscript being accepted or rejected.

Introducing Your Manuscript

The first paragraph of your cover letter should introduce the manuscript you are submitting. This should include the title and type of manuscript (e.g., original research article, review article, clinical report). Give a brief overview of the manuscript content, but don't go into too much detail at this stage. The purpose of this paragraph is to give the editor-in-chief a quick snapshot of your research.

Remember to keep the introduction concise and to the point. You want to give the editor-in-chief a clear idea of what your manuscript is about without overwhelming them with information.

Highlighting the Significance of Your Research

Next, you should explain why your research is important and how it contributes to the existing literature in your field. This section can be challenging because you are trying to summarize the significance of your study in just a few sentences. Be clear and concise, and emphasize the major findings and contributions of the research.

It is important to provide context for your research and explain how it builds upon previous studies. This will help the editor-in-chief understand the significance of your work and its potential impact on the field.

Demonstrating Your Expertise

It is also important to demonstrate your qualifications for conducting this research. You should provide a brief summary of your experience, education, and expertise in the field. This section should be tailored to the specific journal and highlight why your research is a good fit for the publication. Keep in mind that editors receive many submissions, so it is important to make your qualifications clear and concise.

Don't be afraid to highlight any relevant publications or awards you have received. This will help demonstrate your expertise and credibility as a researcher.

In conclusion, a well-written cover letter is essential for getting your manuscript noticed by the editor-in-chief. By introducing your manuscript, highlighting the significance of your research, and demonstrating your expertise, you can increase your chances of getting published in a reputable academic journal.

Formatting Your Cover Letter

Contact information.

The first step in formatting your cover letter is to include your contact information at the top of the page. This includes your name, address, phone number, and email address. It is important to make sure that your contact information is accurate and up-to-date so that the editor can reach you if necessary.

The next step is to address the editor-in-chief personally. This shows that you have done your research and are interested in their journal specifically. Look up the editor's name and use a professional salutation (e.g., "Dear Dr. Smith" or "Dear Editor-in-Chief").

Body of the Letter

The body of the letter should be divided into different paragraphs, each with a specific purpose. Use headings and subheadings to make your letter easy to read and navigate. Make sure that each paragraph flows well and is connected to the overarching theme of your letter. Be sure to use clear and concise language.

Closing and Signature

Finally, close your cover letter by thanking the editor for considering your manuscript. Provide any additional information that may be helpful and end with a professional closing (e.g., "Sincerely" or "Best regards"). Don't forget to sign your letter before submitting it.

Crafting a Compelling Opening Paragraph

Addressing the editor.

Your opening paragraph should address the editor-in-chief by name and introduce yourself. This is a good opportunity to establish a relationship with the editor and show that you have done your research on the journal.

Mentioning the Journal's Scope

You should also mention the scope of the journal and how your research fits within its focus. This shows that you are familiar with the content of the journal and what they typically publish.

Stating the Manuscript's Title and Type

The opening paragraph should also clearly state the title and type of your manuscript. This gives the editor-in-chief a preview of what your research is about.

Summarizing Your Research and Findings

Describing the study's objective.

In the body of your cover letter, you should provide a summary of your research and findings. Start by describing the objective of the research and why it is important. This should be clear and concise, highlighting the problem that you are trying to address.

Outlining the Methodology

Next, provide an overview of the methodology. Include the methods you used to gather data, the sample size, and any other relevant details. This section should help the editor understand how you conducted your research and the validity of your findings.

Presenting the Results

Finally, summarize the results of your research. This should include the key findings, insights, and implications. Be sure to explain how your research contributes to the existing literature and why it should be considered for publication.

ChatGPT Prompt for Writing a Cover Letter for a Journal Submission

Use the following prompt in an AI chatbot . Below each prompt, be sure to provide additional details about your situation. These could be scratch notes, what you'd like to say or anything else that guides the AI model to write a certain way.

Compose a detailed and thorough cover letter that is tailored specifically for a journal submission. This letter should effectively communicate your intentions and qualifications, and should provide a clear and compelling argument for why your work is a strong fit for the publication. Your letter should be well-written and professional, and should highlight the key aspects of your research that make it a valuable contribution to the field. Additionally, be sure to follow any specific guidelines or requirements set forth by the journal in order to maximize your chances of acceptance.

[ADD ADDITIONAL CONTEXT. CAN USE BULLET POINTS.]

Overall, writing a cover letter for a journal submission requires careful planning and attention to detail. The letter should be professional, clear, and concise. By following these guidelines and formatting your letter correctly, you can increase the chances of your manuscript being accepted for publication.

You Might Also Like...

Stay ahead of the ai revolution..

ChatGPT Prompt

Recommended articles, how to write a winning pitch letter, how to write a cover letter for a proposal: a step-by-step guide, get the latest ai.

Submit Manuscript

Easy Online Form

Get Newsletter

Sign Up Today

Mastering the Effective Cover Letter for Journal Submission: A Comprehensive Guide

Home » Blog » Mastering the Effective Cover Letter for Journal Submission: A Comprehensive Guide

Understanding the Importance of an Effective Cover Letter

When it comes to submitting your scientific manuscript to a journal, think of your cover letter as your first handshake with the editor. It’s not just a courtesy; it’s an integral part of the submission process. An effective cover letter is your chance to make a strong first impression, to say, “Hey, I’ve got something valuable and exciting to share with your readers.” But it’s more than just a greeting; it’s a strategic tool to advocate for your manuscript.

A well-crafted and effective cover letter does several things. First, it introduces your work to the editor and provides a succinct overview of your study and its significance. It’s your opportunity to explain why your research fits perfectly within the scope of their journal, potentially solving a puzzle or advancing the field in a way that their readership will find compelling.

Moreover, this cover letter sets the stage for your manuscript, highlighting its strengths without overselling them. It addresses any potential concerns an editor might have, such as the study’s uniqueness or ethical considerations, head-on. By doing so, you’re not only showing transparency but also building trust with the journal’s editorial team.

But let’s not forget, the cover letter also serves as a platform to showcase your professionalism and attention to detail. A well-written, error-free letter reflects your commitment to quality, suggesting that the same level of care has been applied to your research and manuscript.

In essence, the cover letter for your journal submission is your advocate, concierge, and first ambassador all rolled into one. It champions your manuscript, ensuring it gets the consideration and review it deserves. So, mastering the effective cover letter is not just about following a format—it’s about understanding its role in your publication journey and leveraging it to set your research apart.

The Anatomy of an Effective Cover Letter

Crafting an effective cover letter for your journal submission is akin to mapping out a well-planned journey for your manuscript. It requires a clear structure, compelling content, and a strategic approach to guide the editor through your submission. Here’s what every winning cover letter should include:

Introduction

Start with the basics: Mention the title of your manuscript and the journal you’re submitting to. Introduce your study briefly, emphasizing its relevance and why you believe it’s a good fit for the journal.

Statement of Significance

This is where you shine a spotlight on the importance of your research. What gap does it fill? How does it advance the field? Make it clear why your work matters and should be read by the journal’s audience.

Alignment with Journal’s Scope

Demonstrate your familiarity with the journal by explaining how your manuscript aligns with its aims and scope. This shows respect for the editor’s work and positions your study as a valuable addition to their publication.

Key Findings and Contributions

Highlight the main findings of your research and its theoretical or practical contributions to the field. Be succinct but persuasive, providing just enough detail to intrigue the editor and underscore the novelty and relevance of your work.

Addressing Potential Concerns

If there are unique circumstances or potential concerns with your submission (e.g., closely related publications, multi-part studies), address them upfront. Honesty and transparency can preempt misunderstandings and demonstrate your integrity as a researcher.

Wrap up your cover letter by reiterating your enthusiasm for the opportunity to publish in the journal and thanking the editor for considering your work. A courteous and professional closing leaves a positive, lasting impression.

Contact Information

Don’t forget to include your contact information, making it easy for the journal’s editorial team to reach you with questions or updates regarding your submission.

Remember, the goal of your effective cover letter is not to regurgitate the details of your manuscript but to complement it by highlighting its significance, novelty, and fit for the journal. Think of it as the opening argument in your case for publication, laying a solid foundation for the detailed evidence presented in your manuscript.

Personalizing Your Introduction: Making a Strong First Impression

The opening lines of your effective cover letter for journal submission are where you set the tone and engage the editor. It’s more than just stating the title of your manuscript and your intent to submit; it’s about making a connection. Here’s how to personalize your introduction effectively:

• Start with Why : Begin by briefly explaining why you chose this specific journal for your manuscript. Is it the journal’s reputation in your field, the match with the journal’s thematic focus, or the impact it has on its readership? This not only shows that you’ve done your homework but also that you value the journal’s contribution to your research area.
• Mention Previous Interactions : If you’ve had previous communications with the journal or its editors, or if you’re responding to an invitation to submit, mention this early on. It provides context and a touchpoint for the editor.
• Express Genuine Interest : Convey your genuine interest in the journal and enthusiasm about the potential of your research to contribute to the field. This enthusiasm can be contagious and prompt the editor to view your submission with keen interest.
• Tailor Your Language : The tone and language should be professional yet accessible. Avoid overly technical jargon in the introduction; save that for the manuscript itself. The goal here is to communicate clearly and effectively, making a strong case for your research.

Making a strong first impression with your introduction is crucial. It’s your chance to engage the editor from the get-go, setting the stage for the rest of your cover letter and, ultimately, your manuscript. By personalizing your introduction, you not only demonstrate respect for the journal and its editorial team but also start building a rapport that can positively influence the submission process.

Outlining the Significance of Your Research

In the heart of your cover letter lies the core of your manuscript: the significance of your research. This section is your opportunity to articulate the value and impact of your work. Here’s how you can effectively convey the importance of your study:

Highlight the Gap Your Research Fills

Begin by setting the scene. What is the current state of research in your field, and where does your work fit in? Identify the gap or challenge your study addresses, and explain how your research moves the needle. This demonstrates not only the relevance of your work but also its potential to make a meaningful contribution.

Emphasize the Novelty and Contributions

What makes your research stand out? Here, you can highlight the innovative aspects of your study, whether it’s a new methodology, findings that challenge existing theories, or the application of research in a novel context. Be clear about how your work advances knowledge in your field and the specific contributions it makes.

Discuss the Broader Impact

Beyond the academic sphere, what are the practical implications of your research? Whether it’s influencing policy, contributing to technological advancements, or addressing societal challenges, showcasing the broader impact of your work can significantly enhance its appeal to the journal.

Make It Relatable

Use language that conveys the excitement and significance of your research without delving into technical jargon. The goal is to make the editor understand and appreciate the value of your work, even if they’re not a specialist in your specific field.

Outlining the significance of your research is about painting a picture of a landscape enhanced by your study. It’s about showing where your research fits in the broader context and how it contributes to advancing knowledge and practice in your field. By doing so, you’re not just submitting a manuscript; you’re offering a new lens through which to view and understand an aspect of your discipline.

How to Align Your Study with the Journal’s Scope

Ensuring your manuscript aligns with the journal’s scope is pivotal for its acceptance. This alignment signals to the editors and reviewers that your research is not only relevant but also contributes meaningfully to the journal’s mission. Here’s how to articulate this alignment in your cover letter:

Research the Journal’s Aims and Scope

Before you even pen that cover letter, dive deep into the journal’s website. Understand its aims, scope, and the audience it serves. This isn’t just about ensuring your research fits; it’s about tailoring your message to resonate with the journal’s editorial priorities.

Draw Clear Connections

Explicitly state how your research fits within the scope of the journal. This could mean highlighting the specific aspect of your study that addresses a gap the journal is keen on filling, or how your findings contribute to a particular theme or debate featured in the journal. Make these connections as clear as possible.

Use the Journal’s Language

Incorporate keywords and phrases from the journal’s aims and scope into your cover letter. This does not mean keyword stuffing, but rather naturally integrating terms that resonate with the journal’s focus. This linguistic alignment can subtly signal that your research is a good fit.

Highlight Relevance to the Journal’s Readership

Explain why your research matters to the journal’s readers. What will they learn or gain from your study? How does it advance the conversation in the field? This shows you understand the journal’s audience and have considered how your work adds value to their professional or academic pursuits.

Reference Relevant Articles from the Journal

If applicable, mention any articles previously published in the journal that relate to your work. This can demonstrate your engagement with the journal’s content and how your research builds upon or diverges from these discussions.

Aligning your study with the journal’s scope is not just a bureaucratic step; it’s a strategic move that shows respect for the journal’s mission and an understanding of its place in the academic community. By clearly articulating this alignment in your cover letter, you significantly increase the chances of your manuscript being viewed favorably by the editorial team.

Highlighting Your Manuscript’s Key Findings

Your cover letter should succinctly highlight the key findings of your research, showcasing the core achievements and their implications. This section is where you get to brag a bit about what your study has uncovered. Here’s how to do it effectively:

Summarize the Main Results

Begin by summarizing your main results in a few sentences. Focus on the outcomes that are most relevant and impactful to your field. Avoid getting bogged down in the details; instead, aim for clarity and brevity, giving the editor a clear snapshot of your findings.

Explain the Implications

After presenting your results, delve into their implications. How do they advance the field? Do they challenge existing theories or practices? Make sure to articulate the significance of your findings in a way that resonates with the broader academic community and aligns with the journal’s focus.

Emphasize the Novelty

If your research introduces new methods, concepts, or insights, highlight these as key findings. Emphasizing the novelty of your work can help differentiate it from other submissions and pique the editor’s interest.

Use Accessible Language

While it’s important to be precise, also ensure your description is accessible to those who might not be specialists in your specific area of research. Avoid jargon and technical terms when possible, or briefly explain them if they’re necessary to convey your findings.

Highlighting your manuscript’s key findings in the effective cover letter is crucial. It gives the editor a compelling reason to consider your manuscript for publication. By effectively summarizing and emphasizing the importance of your results, you can make a strong case for why your research deserves attention.

Addressing Potential Reviewer Concerns Upfront

Preemptively addressing potential concerns in your effective cover letter can significantly influence the editorial process in your favor. It demonstrates foresight, thoroughness, and a commitment to transparency. Here’s how to approach this effectively:

Anticipate Reviewer Questions

Think about the potential weaknesses or questions reviewers might have about your study. These could relate to your methodology, the robustness of your data, or the generalizability of your findings. By anticipating these concerns, you can address them before they even arise.

Provide Context for Controversial Choices

If your research involved unconventional methodologies or controversial choices, provide a brief explanation in your cover letter. Explain why you chose this path and how it strengthens your study. This preemptive clarification can mitigate concerns and highlight your innovative approach.

Acknowledge Limitations

No study is without its limitations, and acknowledging these upfront can be a strength. Briefly mention any significant limitations and, if possible, how you’ve mitigated them. This honesty builds trust and demonstrates a rigorous scientific approach.

Discuss the Uniqueness of Your Study

If there’s a chance your manuscript might be seen as too similar to existing research, clarify what sets your work apart. Highlight the novel aspects of your study, whether it’s in your approach, the data you’ve uncovered, or the implications of your findings.

Addressing potential concerns upfront doesn’t mean your manuscript is flawed; rather, it shows that you’re engaged in a thoughtful, critical examination of your work. This approach can not only alleviate potential objections but also position your manuscript as a strong candidate for publication by showcasing your commitment to a rigorous scientific discourse.

The Do’s and Don’ts of Cover Letter Etiquette

Navigating the nuances of cover letter etiquette can make a significant difference in how your submission is received. Here are some key do’s and don’ts to ensure your cover letter reflects the best professional standards:

• Be Concise : Keep your cover letter to a page or less. Editors are busy, so respect their time by getting straight to the point.
• Personalize Your Letter : Address the editor by name if possible. A personalized greeting can add a touch of professionalism and shows you’ve done your homework.
• Proofread : Typos and grammatical errors can undermine the credibility of your submission. A well-proofed letter shows attention to detail.
• Express Enthusiasm : Let your genuine interest in the journal and belief in the significance of your research shine through, without overdoing it.

Don’t:

• Reiterate Your Abstract : The cover letter is not the place to copy-paste your abstract. Instead, use it to highlight the significance and fit of your research.
• Overstate Your Findings : Be honest about the implications of your research. Overselling your findings can backfire if the claims aren’t supported by the data.
• Ignore Submission Guidelines : If the journal has specific requirements for cover letters, follow them meticulously. This shows respect for the journal’s editorial process.
• Use Generic Language : Tailor your cover letter to each journal submission. A generic, one-size-fits-all letter can come off as impersonal and lazy.

Adhering to these do’s and don’ts will not only help you craft a more effective cover letter but also demonstrate your professionalism and respect for the editorial process. Remember, the cover letter is an integral part of your submission package, and getting it right can significantly influence the first impression you make on the journal’s editorial team.

Crafting a Convincing Conclusion for Your Cover Letter

The conclusion of your cover letter is your final opportunity to make an impression on the editor and reinforce the significance of your submission. Here’s how to craft a conclusion that resonates:

Reiterate the Fit and Significance

Briefly restate why your manuscript is a good fit for the journal and its significance to the field. This is your chance to leave the editor with a strong sense of the value of your work and its potential impact.

Express Your Enthusiasm and Commitment

Convey your enthusiasm for the possibility of publishing in the journal. Let the editor know you’re looking forward to the opportunity to contribute to their publication and the broader academic conversation. Additionally, affirm your willingness to revise your manuscript according to the feedback from the review process, demonstrating your commitment to excellence and collaboration.

Thank the Editor

Always end with a note of thanks for considering your submission. Acknowledging the editor’s time and effort shows respect and professionalism.

Provide Contact Information

Make sure the editor knows how to reach you. Include your email address and phone number, even if it’s already provided elsewhere in your submission package.

A well-crafted conclusion can strengthen your cover letter, leaving a lasting positive impression on the editor. It encapsulates the essence of your submission, underscores your professionalism, and sets the stage for a constructive editorial relationship.

Common Pitfalls to Avoid in Your Cover Letter

A well-crafted cover letter can be a key factor in getting your manuscript noticed, but certain missteps can undermine its effectiveness. Here are some common pitfalls to avoid:

Overlooking Journal Guidelines

One of the quickest ways to make a poor impression is to ignore the journal’s submission guidelines. These may include specific requirements for cover letters. Always tailor your cover letter to meet these guidelines precisely.

Being Too Vague or Generic

Generic cover letters that could apply to any journal not only miss the opportunity to highlight the fit between your manuscript and the journal but also suggest a lack of genuine interest. Be specific about why your work is right for this journal.

Neglecting to Highlight Key Findings

Your cover letter should succinctly summarize the main findings and contributions of your study. Failing to do so can leave the editor unclear about the significance of your work.

Failing to Address Potential Concerns

If there are obvious potential concerns with your manuscript (such as a small sample size or the preliminary nature of the results), failing to address these upfront can be a missed opportunity to frame these issues in the best light.

Overselling Your Study

While it’s important to highlight the significance of your work, avoid overselling your findings or their implications. This can raise red flags for editors and reviewers.

Poor Formatting and Typos

A cover letter riddled with typos, grammatical errors, or formatting issues can undermine your manuscript’s credibility from the outset. Proofread carefully and consider having a colleague review it as well.

Ignoring the Cover Letter’s Tone

The tone of your effective cover letter should be professional yet accessible. Avoid overly technical language that might obscure the significance of your work to the journal editor.

By steering clear of these pitfalls, you can enhance the effectiveness of your cover letter, making a strong case for the publication of your manuscript.

Expert Tips for a Revision-Proof Cover Letter

Creating a cover letter that withstands the scrutiny of journal editors and reviewers requires insight and finesse. Here are expert tips to fortify your cover letter against potential revisions:

Tailor Your Message

Customize your effective cover letter for each journal submission. Demonstrate your understanding of the journal’s audience, scope, and priorities. This personal touch can significantly increase your manuscript’s chances of being considered.

Be Clear and Concise

Clarity and conciseness are your allies. Avoid unnecessary jargon and lengthy explanations. Your goal is to communicate the essence and significance of your research succinctly.

Use a Positive Tone

Maintain a positive and confident tone throughout your cover letter. Focus on the strengths and contributions of your research, while being honest about its limitations.

Highlight the Novelty

Make sure to clearly articulate what is new and important about your research. This can be a key factor in catching the editor’s interest.

Address Ethical Considerations

If your research involves sensitive subjects or potential ethical concerns, briefly outline how these were addressed. Demonstrating ethical rigor can preempt questions and concerns.

Be Proactive About Potential Concerns

If there are aspects of your study that might raise questions (such as preliminary findings or a small sample size), address these proactively. Explain why these do not detract from the validity and relevance of your research.

Offer to Provide Additional Information

Indicate your willingness to provide further details or clarification if needed. This shows your commitment to engaging with the review process constructively.

Express Willingness to Review and Revise

Convey your openness to reviewing and revising your manuscript based on the journal’s feedback. This flexibility can be favorable in the editorial decision-making process.

Crafting a cover letter with these expert tips in mind can set your submission apart, demonstrating not only the value of your research but also your professionalism as a researcher.

Final Checklist Before Submission: Ensuring Your Cover Letter is Submission-Ready

Before hitting the “submit” button, run through this final checklist to make sure your cover letter is polished and poised for success:

1. Personalization : Have you addressed the editor by name, if possible? Personal touches can make a difference.

2. clarity and brevity : is your cover letter concise, clear, and to the point ensure it’s no longer than one page., 3. key findings highlighted : have you clearly highlighted the key findings and significance of your research make sure these stand out., 4. journal fit : have you articulated why your manuscript is a good fit for the journal’s scope and audience this alignment is crucial., 5. novelty and contribution : does your cover letter emphasize the novelty and contributions of your study make sure the unique aspects of your work are front and center., 6. anticipation of concerns : have you addressed any potential concerns or questions about your manuscript preemptive explanations can ease the review process., 7. ethical considerations : if applicable, have you outlined how ethical concerns were addressed in your study, 8. revision willingness : have you expressed your willingness to review and revise based on feedback this shows a collaborative spirit., 9. proofreading : is your cover letter free from typos and grammatical errors a well-proofed letter reflects your professionalism., 10. contact information : have you included your contact information, making it easy for the editor to reach you.

This checklist ensures that your cover letter not only presents your manuscript in the best possible light but also demonstrates your professionalism and readiness for the publication process.

With your cover letter refined and ready, you’re set to make a strong submission. Remember, the cover letter is your first impression on the journal’s editorial team—make it count!

Summary: Why San Francisco Edit Is Your Best Option for Mastering the Cover Letter for Journal Submission

When it comes to scientific manuscript editing and preparing for journal submission, the importance of a polished, professional cover letter cannot be overstated. It’s the first impression you make on the journal’s editorial team, a succinct pitch that highlights the significance and fit of your research. That’s where San Francisco Edit steps in, offering unparalleled expertise in crafting cover letters that open doors.

Our team understands the nuances of academic publishing across science, academia, research, and publishing sectors. We’re adept at articulating the importance of your work, aligning it with the journal’s scope, and presenting it in a way that’s both compelling and concise. Our editors are not just language experts; they have a deep understanding of the scientific process and what journal editors are looking for.

Choosing San Francisco Edit means entrusting your cover letter to specialists who can significantly increase the likelihood of your manuscript being accepted. We provide personalized advice, ensuring your letter is tailored to each specific journal, highlighting your research’s novelty and its potential contribution to the field. Our service is designed to navigate the complexities of journal submission, making the process smoother and more successful.

With San Francisco Edit, you’re not just getting an editing service; you’re gaining a partner in your publication journey. Our commitment to excellence and our detailed understanding of the academic landscape make us the best option for researchers seeking to make an impact with their work.

Contact us today to ensure your cover letter—and your manuscript—stands out in the crowded world of academic publishing.

FAQ’s

What makes a cover letter for journal submission stand out.

A standout cover letter is concise, personalized, clearly articulates the manuscript’s significance and novelty, and demonstrates a good fit with the journal’s scope.

How long should my cover letter be?

Your cover letter should be no longer than one page, succinctly covering all the key points without overloading the editor with unnecessary details.

Can a good cover letter really make a difference in getting published?

Absolutely. A well-crafted cover letter can catch an editor’s attention, making them more inclined to consider your manuscript favorably.

Should I mention potential concerns in my cover letter?

Yes, addressing potential concerns upfront can demonstrate your thoroughness and mitigate any reservations the editor might have.

How does San Francisco Edit tailor cover letters to different journals?

San Francisco Edit thoroughly researches each journal’s aims and scope, tailoring your cover letter to highlight how your manuscript aligns with the journal’s interests and contributes to the field.

Is it worth investing in professional editing for my cover letter?

Investing in professional editing for your cover letter can significantly enhance your manuscript’s chance of acceptance, making it a wise decision for serious researchers.

Sign Up For Our Newsletter

Latest from the blog.

How to Review a Scientific Paper for a Journal: A Step-by-Step Approach

Response Letter to Journal Reviewers: How to Address Feedback Professionally

How to Write a Discussion for a Research Paper: A Step-by-Step Guide

How to Write a Cover Letter for a Journal: Aligning Your Work with the Journal’s Aims

• Knowledge Center
• English Grammar
• Getting Published
• Journal Submission
• Marketing Your Paper and Yourself
• Peer Reviewing a Scientific Paper
• Presenting Your Research
• Thesis vs Dissertation
• What is Scientific Editing
• Why Edit and Types of Editing
• Writing the Manuscript
• Scientific Editing
• Business Editing
• Language Editing
• Newsletters
• Testimonials
• Areas of Expertise

San Francisco Edit 1755 Jackson Street Suite 610 San Francisco, CA 94109 Email: [email protected]

Copyright © 2003-2022 San Francisco Edit. All Rights Reserved.

Join 90,000+ Scientist Who Get Useful Tips For Writing Better Manuscripts

Don't miss out on future newsletters. sign up now..

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

How to Write a Cover Letter for Journal Submission

If you’re looking for solid advice on how to write a strong journal submission cover letter that will convince journal editors to review your research paper, then look no further! We know that cover letters  can  impact an editor’s decision to consider your research paper further.

This guide aims to explain (1) why you should care about writing a powerful cover letter, (2) what you should include in it, and (3) how you should structure it. The last segment will include a free downloadable submission cover letter template with detailed how-to explanations and some useful phrases. Finally, be sure to get journal manuscript editing , cover letter editing , and other academic editing services by Wordvice’s professional editors to ensure that you convey an academic style and error-free text, along with including all of the most important content.

Why does a good cover letter matter?

While your research paper’s role is to prove the merits of your research, a strong introductory cover letter is your opportunity to highlight the significance of your research and “sell” its concept to journal editors.

While your research paper’s role is to prove the merits of your research, a strong introductory cover letter is your opportunity to highlight the significance of your research and “sell” its concept to journal editors.

Sadly, we must admit that part of the decision-making process of whether to accept a manuscript is based on a business model. Editors must select articles that will interest their readers. In other words, your paper, if published, must make money . When it’s not quite clear how your research paper might generate interest based on its title and content alone (for example, if your paper is too technical for most editors to appreciate), your cover letter is the one opportunity you will get to convince the editors that your work is worth further review.

In addition to economic factors, many editors use the cover letter to screen whether authors can follow basic instructions . For example, if a journal’s guide for authors states that you must include disclosures, potential reviewers, and statements regarding ethical practices, failure to include these items might lead to the automatic rejection of your article, even if your research is the most progressive project on the planet! By failing to follow directions, you raise a red flag that you may be careless, and if you’re not attentive to the details of a cover letter, editors might wonder about the quality and thoroughness of your research. This is not the impression you want to give editors!

What to Include in a Cover Letter for a Journal Submission

We can’t stress this enough: Follow your target journal’s instructions for authors ! No matter what other advice you read in the vast webosphere, make sure you prioritize the information requested by the editors of the journal you are submitting to. As we explained above, failure to include required statements will lead to an automatic “ desk rejection ”.

With that said, below is a list of the most common elements you must include in your cover letter and what information you should NOT include:

Essential information:

• Editor’s name (when known)
• Name of the journal to which you are submitting
• Your manuscript’s title
• Article type (review, research, case study, etc.)
• Submission date
• Brief background of your study and the research question you sought to answer
• Brief overview of methodology used
• Principle findings and significance to scientific community (how your research advances our understanding of a concept)
• Corresponding author contact information
• Statement that your paper has not been previously published and is not currently under consideration by another journal and that all authors have approved of and have agreed to submit the manuscript to this journal

Other commonly requested information:

• Short list of similar articles previously published by the target journal
• List of relevant works by you or your co-authors that have been previously published or are under consideration by other journals. You can include copies of those works.
• Mention of any prior discussions with editor(s) (for example, if you discussed the topic with an editor at a conference)
• Technical specialties required to evaluate your paper
• Potential reviewers and their contact information
• If needed, reviewers to exclude (this information is most likely also requested elsewhere in online submissions forms)

Other disclosures/statements required by the journal (e.g., compliance with ethical standards, conflicts of interest , agreement to terms of submission, copyright sign-over, etc.)

What you should NOT do:

• Don’t use too much jargon or include too many acronyms.
• Don’t over-embellish your findings or their significance. Avoid words such as “novel,” “first ever,” and “paradigm-changing.” These types of statements show bias and will make the editor question your ability to assess your work’s merits objectively.
• Don’t name-drop. Listing people who might endorse your paper and discussing authors’ reputations do not interest editors. They want to know if your content fits their criteria, so focus solely on addressing that point.
• Don’t write a novel. While you want to adequately explain your work and sell its concept to editors, keep your cover letter to a maximum of one page. The letter is only meant to be an introduction and brief overview.
• Avoid humor . As much as we want to grab the editors’ attention, there are too many ways in which humor can go wrong!

How to Structure a Cover Letter

You should use formal language in your cover letter. Since most submissions are delivered electronically, the template below is in a modified e-mail format. However, if you send your cover letter on letterhead (PDF or hard copy by mail), move your contact information to the upper-left corner of the page unless you use pre-printed letterhead, in which case your contact information should be centered at the top of the letter.

ANNOTATED TEMPLATE Journal Submissions Cover Letter

[Journal Editor’s First and Last Name][, Graduate Degree (if any)] TIP: It’s customary to include any graduate degrees in the addressee’s name. e.g.,  John Smith, MD or Carolyn Daniels, MPH [Title] e.g.,  Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, Co-Editors-in-Chief [Journal Name] [Journal Address] [Submission Date: Month Day, Year]

Dear Dr./Mr./Ms. [Editor’s last name]:

TIP: Where the editor’s name is not known, use the relevant title employed by the journal, such as “Dear Managing Editor:” or “Dear Editor-in-Chief:”. Using a person’s name is best, however.

TIP: Use “Ms.” and never “Mrs.” or “Miss” in formal business letters.

TIP:  Never   use “Dear Sirs:” or any similar expression. Many editors will find this insulting, especially given that many of them are female!

[Para.1: 2–3 sentences]  I am writing to submit our manuscript entitled, [“Title”] for consideration as a [Journal Name][Article Type]. [One to two sentence “pitch” that summarizes the study design, where applicable, your research question, your major findings, and the conclusion.]

e.g.,  I am writing to submit our manuscript entitled, “X Marks the Spot” for consideration as an  Awesome Science Journal  research article. We examined the efficacy of using X factors as indicators for depression in Y subjects in Z regions through a 12-month prospective cohort study and can confirm that monitoring the levels of X is critical to identifying the onset of depression, regardless of geographical influences.

TIP: Useful phrases to discuss your findings and conclusion include:

• Our findings confirm that…
• We have determined that…
• Our results suggest…
• We found that…
• We illustrate…
• Our findings reveal…
• Our study clarifies…
• Our research corroborates…
• Our results establish…
• Our work substantiates…

[Para. 2: 2–5 sentences]  Given that [context that prompted your research], we believe that the findings presented in our paper will appeal to the [Reader Profile] who subscribe to [Journal Name]. Our findings will allow your readers to [identify the aspects of the journal’s  Aim and Scope  that align with your paper].

TIP: Identify the journal’s typical audience and how those people can utilize your research to expand their understanding of a topic. For example, if many of your target journal’s readers are interested in the public policy implications of various research studies, you may wish to discuss how your conclusions can help your peers to develop stronger policies that more effectively address public concerns.

TIP: Include context about why this research question had to be addressed.

e.g.,  “Given the struggle policymakers have had to define proper criteria to diagnose the onset of depression in teenagers, we felt compelled to identify a cost-effective and universal methodology that local school administrators can use to screen students.”

TIP: If your paper was prompted by prior research, state this. For example, “After initially researching X, Y approached us to conduct a follow-up study that examined Z. While pursuing this project, we discovered [some new understanding that made you decide the information needed to be shared with your peers via publication.]”

e.g.,  Given the alarming increase in depression rates among teenagers and the lack of any uniform practical tests for screening students, we believe that the findings presented in our paper will appeal to education policymakers who subscribe to  The Journal of Education . Although prior research has identified a few methods that could be used in depression screening, such as X and Y, the applications developed from those findings have been cost-prohibitive and difficult to administer on a national level. Thus, our findings will allow your readers to understand the factors involved in identifying the onset of depression in teenagers better and develop more cost-effective screening procedures that can be employed nationally. In so doing, we hope that our research advances the toolset needed to combat the concerns preoccupying the minds of many school administrators.

[Para 3: Similar works]  “This manuscript expands on the prior research conducted and published by [Authors] in [Journal Name]” or “This paper [examines a different aspect of]/ [takes a different approach to] the issues explored in the following papers also published by [Journal Name].”

TIP: You should mention similar studies recently published by your target journal, if any, but list no more than five. If you only want to mention one article, replace the preceding sentence with “This paper [examines a different aspect of]/ [takes a different approach to] the issues explored by [Authors] in [Article Title], also published by [Journal Name] on [DATE].”

[Para. 4: Additional statements often required]  Each of the authors confirms that this manuscript has not been previously published and is not currently under consideration by any other journal. Additionally, all of the authors have approved the contents of this paper and have agreed to the [Journal Name]’s submission policies.

TIP: If you have previously publicly shared some form or part of your research elsewhere, state so. For example, you can say, “We have presented a subset of our findings [at Event]/ [as a Type of Publication Medium] in [Location] in [Year].”

e.g.,  We have since expanded the scope of our research to contemplate international feasibility and acquired additional data that has helped us to develop a new understanding of geographical influences.

[Para. 5: Potential Reviewers]  Should you select our manuscript for peer review, we would like to suggest the following potential reviewers/referees because they would have the requisite background to evaluate our findings and interpretation objectively.

• [Name, institution, email, expertise]

To the best of our knowledge, none of the above-suggested persons have any conflict of interest, financial or otherwise.

TIP: Include 3–5 reviewers since it is likely that the journal will use at least one of your suggestions.

TIP: Use whichever term (“reviewer” or “referee”) your target journal uses. Paying close attention to a journal’s terminology is a sign that you have properly researched the journal and have prepared!

[Para. 6: Frequently requested additional information]  Each named author has substantially contributed to conducting the underlying research and drafting this manuscript. Additionally, to the best of our knowledge, the named authors have no conflict of interest, financial or otherwise.

[Your Name]

Corresponding Author Institution Title Institution/Affiliation Name [Institution Address] [Your e-mail address] [Tel: (include relevant country/area code)] [Fax: (include relevant country/area code)]

Additional Contact [should the corresponding author not be available] Institution Title Institution/Affiliation Name [Institution Address] [Your e-mail address] [Tel: (include relevant country/area code)] [Fax: (include relevant country/area code)]

Quick Cover Letter Checklist Before Submission

• Set the font to Arial or Times New Roman, size 12 point.
• Single-space all text.
• Use one line space between body paragraphs.
• Do not indent paragraphs.
• Keep all text left justified.
• Use spelling and grammar check software. If needed, use a proofreading service or cover letter editing service  such as Wordvice to review your letter for clarity and concision.
• Double-check the editor’s name. Call the journal to confirm if necessary.

Writing a Cover Letter for Journal Submission [Free Template]

• Research Process
• Peer Review

Journal cover letters are your chance to lobby on behalf of your manuscript. This AJE Journal Cover Letter Guide offers some useful tips for getting them right. It also includes a free journal cover letter template.

Updated on September 20, 2018

The cover letter accompanying your journal submission is your chance to lobby on behalf of your manuscript. The letter is far from just a formality and should be written with the same care as your manuscript's text (if not more). Ultimately, your cover letter is designed to influence the decision of the editor to send your manuscript out for peer review. The letter will argue that your manuscript is a good fit for the journal you are submitting it to and highlight your most important findings. Let us help you produce the most effective cover letter possible.

Getting ready to submit your manuscript? Download our comprehensive Free Journal Cover Letter Writing Guide with Template .

A cover letter should be written like a standard business letter :

Address the editor formally by name, if known. Include your contact information, as well. This information is probably available through the journal's online submission system, but it is proper to provide it in the cover letter, too.

Begin your cover letter with a paragraph that states the name of the manuscript and the names of the authors. You can also describe what type of manuscript your submission is (research article, review, case report, etc.). In this first paragraph and the next, describe the rationale behind your study and the major findings from your research. You can refer to prior work that you have published if it is directly related.

Next, write a short paragraph that explains why your manuscript would be a good fit for the journal. Do not simply state that your manuscript is “of interest to the field” or “novel.” Address specific aspects of the journal's Aims & Scope statement. If the journal expresses interest in research with a clinical application, be sure to highlight the importance of your work in terms of clinical implications. If the journal mentions that it focuses on nanostructured materials, explain how your work involved such materials. Even if your work is not a perfect fit for the journal, be sure to address some of the Aims & Scope statement, and explain why your manuscript would be of interest to the journal's readers.

Finally, close with a brief paragraph indicating the following:

• The manuscript is original (i.e., you wrote it, not copied it)
• No part of the manuscript has been published before, nor is any part of it under consideration for publication at another journal
• There are no conflicts of interest to disclose
• A list of potential reviewers (only if requested by the journal)
• Any researchers who should NOT review your manuscript

Together, this information provides assurance to the editor that your manuscript merits consideration for publication in their journal and that you are interested specifically in their journal. Sometimes great science will be reviewed regardless of the cover letter, but a well written cover letter is useful for the vast majority of scientists who want to make their research stand out.

Best of luck with your research! If you have any questions about your cover letter, write us anytime.

Ben Mudrak, PhD

See our "Privacy Policy"

Cover Letter for Journal Submission Templates

Download a Microsoft Word template for a standard journal cover letter (also available with instructions in Chinese , Japanese , Korean , Portuguese , and Spanish ).

Writing and formatting

In this section:

• NEW! Featured Author Support
• Language editing services
• Reproducing third party illustrative materials
• Suggesting reviewers
• Writing a cover letter
• Video abstracts
• Video: How to submit your article

The cover letter gives you the opportunity to present an overview of your manuscript to the editor.

Your cover letter should include

• The objective and approach of your research
• Any novel contributions reported
• Why your manuscript should be published in this journal
• Any special considerations about your submission
• Related papers by you and/or your fellow authors (published or under consideration)
• Previous reviews of your submission
• Previous submissions of your manuscript to that journal
• Previous communication you’ve had with journal staff

You’re encouraged to submit previous communications as they can help expedite the review process. If you have any of the following, you can submit them as ‘Supplementary file for editors only’:

• Copies of related papers
• Previous editors’ comments and your responses
• Previous reviewers’ comments and your responses

NIH Employees

If you or any of your co-authors are NIH employees, you will have to submit a completed and signed NIH Publishing Agreement and Manuscript Cover Sheet according to NIH’s Employee Procedures .

• SpringerLink shop

Cover letters

A good cover letter can help to “sell” your manuscript to the journal editor. As well as introducing your work to the editor you can also take this opportunity to explain why the manuscript will be of interest to a journal's readers, something which is always as the forefront editors’ mind. As such it is worth spending time writing a coherent and persuasive cover letter.

The following is an example of a poor cover letter:

Dear Editor-in-Chief, I am sending you our manuscript entitled “Large Scale Analysis of Cell Cycle Regulators in bladder cancer” by Researcher et al. We would like to have the manuscript considered for publication in Pathobiology. Please let me know of your decision at your earliest convenience. With my best regards, Sincerely yours, A Researcher, PhD

Instead, check to see whether the journal’s Instructions for Authors have any cover letter requirements (e.g. disclosures, statements, potential reviewers). Then, write a letter that explains why the editor would want to publish your manuscript. The following structure covers all the necessary points that need to be included.

• If known, address the editor who will be assessing your manuscript by their name. Include the date of submission and the journal you are submitting to.
• First paragraph: include the title of your manuscript and the type of manuscript it is (e.g. review, research, case study). Then briefly explain the background to your study, the question you sought out to answer and why.
• Second paragraph: you should concisely explain what was done, the main findings and why they are significant.
• Third paragraph: here you should indicate why the readers of the journal would be interested in the work. Take your cues from the journal’s aims and scope. For example if the journal requires that all work published has broad implications explain how your study fulfils this. It is also a good idea to include a sentence on the importance of the results to the field.
• To conclude state the corresponding author and any journal specific requirements that need to be complied with (e.g. ethical standards).

TIP: All cover letters should contain these sentences:

• We confirm that this manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration by another journal.
• All authors have approved the manuscript and agree with its submission to [insert the name of the target journal].

Submission checklist

Before submitting your manuscript, thoroughly check its quality one more time. Evaluate it critically—could anything be done better?

Be sure that:

• The manuscript follows the Instructions for Authors
• All files are in the correct file format and of the appropriate resolution or size
• The spelling and grammar are correct
• You have contact information for all authors
• You have written a persuasive cover letter

Back │ Next

How to Write a Submission Cover Letter That Will Wow Literary Agents

As a writer, you spend countless hours perfecting your manuscript, pouring your heart and soul into every word. But did you know that the cover letter you include with your manuscript submission is just as …

Written by: Adam

Published on: November 20, 2023

The purpose of a submission cover letter is to introduce yourself and your work to literary agents. It gives you the opportunity to make a strong first impression and convince the agent that your manuscript is worth their time and consideration. While the content of your manuscript is undoubtedly important, a well-written cover letter can help it stand out from the slush pile and increase your chances of getting noticed.

Understanding the purpose of a cover letter for manuscript submission

Before diving into the nitty-gritty of writing a cover letter for manuscript submission, it’s crucial to understand its purpose. A cover letter serves as a professional introduction to your work and provides a glimpse into your writing style and personality. It should be concise, engaging, and tailored specifically to the agent or agency you’re submitting to.

When a literary agent receives a submission, they often have limited time to review each one. A well-crafted cover letter can pique their interest and make them eager to delve into your manuscript. Think of it as a teaser, enticing them to read further. It’s your chance to showcase your writing skills and convince the agent that you’re not only a talented writer but also a professional who understands the industry.

Essential elements of a cover letter for manuscript submission

Now that you understand the purpose of a cover letter, let’s explore the essential elements that should be included. First and foremost, your cover letter should be professional in tone and format. Use a standard business letter format with your contact information at the top, followed by the agent’s details and the date. Address the agent by name if possible, as it shows you’ve done your research and personalized the letter.

Next, introduce yourself and mention the title of your manuscript. Briefly explain why you chose to submit to that particular agent or agency. This demonstrates that you’ve done your homework and are genuinely interested in working with them. Highlight any relevant writing credentials or experience you have that make you uniquely qualified to write the manuscript. Keep this section concise and focus on the most impressive aspects of your background.

Finally, provide a brief summary or pitch of your manuscript. This should be a compelling and concise overview that captures the essence of your story and leaves the agent wanting to know more. Avoid giving away too much detail or spoiling the plot. Instead, focus on intriguing the agent and creating a sense of curiosity. Think of this section as a movie trailer – it should leave the agent eager to dive into your manuscript and discover the full story.

Tips for writing an attention-grabbing opening paragraph

The opening paragraph of your cover letter is your chance to make a strong first impression and grab the agent’s attention. Start with a compelling hook that will immediately engage the agent and makes them curious about your manuscript. It might be an intriguing question, a shocking statistic or a captivating anecdote. The key is to make the agent want to keep reading.

After the hook, briefly introduce yourself and your manuscript. Mention any relevant writing credentials or experience that make you stand out. Highlight why you chose to submit to that particular agent or agency. Show them that you’ve done your research and are genuinely interested in working with them. This personal touch can make a significant impact and show the agent that you’ve put thought into your submission.

Remember to keep the opening paragraph concise and to the point. Agents receive numerous submissions every day, so they appreciate brevity. Avoid rambling or providing unnecessary information. Instead, focus on crafting a strong and attention-grabbing opening that leaves the agent eager to read more.

How to showcase your writing credentials and experience

When it comes to writing a cover letter for manuscript submission, showcasing your writing credentials and experience is essential. This section allows you to demonstrate your expertise and convince the agent that you’re a talented writer who is worth their consideration. Here are a few tips to help you effectively showcase your credentials:

Highlight any relevant writing achievements: Focus on the writing credentials that are most relevant to your manuscript and the genre you’re targeting. This could include published (or self-published) works, writing awards, or any other accomplishments that demonstrate your skill and experience (such as building an audience on social media).

Provide details but be concise: While it’s important to provide some context and details about your writing credentials, remember to keep it concise. Agents have limited time, so make sure to highlight the most impressive aspects without overwhelming them with unnecessary information.

Tailor your credentials to the agent or agency: Research the agent or agency you’re submitting to and tailor your writing credentials accordingly. If they have a particular interest or speciality, highlight any relevant experience you have in that area. This shows the agent that you’ve done your homework and are genuinely interested in working with them.

By effectively showcasing your writing credentials and experience, you can establish yourself as a credible and talented writer. This increases the agent’s confidence in your abilities and makes them more likely to consider your manuscript.

Crafting a compelling summary of your manuscript

Perhaps the most crucial part of your cover letter for manuscript submission is the summary of your manuscript itself. This section is your chance to give the agent a taste of what your story is about and entice them to read further. Here are a few tips to help you craft a compelling summary:

Keep it concise: Your summary should be brief, typically no more than a few paragraphs. Focus on the main plot points and the core themes of your story. Avoid getting bogged down in unnecessary details or subplots.

Capture the essence of your story: Your summary should give the agent a clear idea of what your story is about and what makes it unique. Highlight the main conflict, the protagonist’s journey, and any intriguing elements that set your manuscript apart.

Create a sense of curiosity: The goal of your summary is to leave the agent wanting to know more. Don’t give away all the details or spoil the ending. Instead, create a sense of curiosity that compels the agent to dive into your manuscript and discover the full story.

Crafting a compelling summary takes time and careful consideration. It’s often helpful to draft multiple versions and seek feedback from trusted peers or writing groups. Remember, your summary is your manuscript’s first impression, so make it count.

Do’s and don’ts of writing a cover letter for manuscript submission

To wrap up our guide on writing a submission cover letter, let’s go over some essential do’s and don’ts to keep in mind:

• Address the agent by name if possible.
• Tailor your cover letter to the agent or agency you’re submitting to.
• Highlight your most relevant writing credentials and experience.
• Keep your cover letter concise and to the point.
• Proofread your cover letter for any grammatical or spelling errors.

Don’t:

• Ramble or provide unnecessary information.
• Oversell or exaggerate your writing credentials.
• Give away too much detail or spoil the plot in your manuscript summary.
• Forget to personalise your cover letter for each submission.
• Forget to follow the submission guidelines provided by the agent or agency.

By following these do’s and don’ts, you can ensure that your cover letter is professional, engaging, and tailored to the agent you’re submitting to. Remember, the goal is to get a foot in the door, make a good first impression and convince the agent that your manuscript is worth their time and consideration.

The Ultimate Guide to Novel Length: How Many Words Should Your Book Be?

Creating memorable characters through dialogue: a guide to writing effective conversations in your novel.

JavaScript seems to be disabled in your browser. For the best experience on our site, be sure to turn on Javascript in your browser.

• Create an Account
• Ready To Submit: Writing a Cover Letter

Writing a Cover Letter

When submitting a manuscript, authors will need to additionally submit a cover letter. The purpose of this letter is to highlight the importance and relevance of your research. To assist with preparing your cover letter to include all points, you can download and use our sample cover letter as a guide.

What to Include

• Address the editor by their name.
• Include your manscript's title.
• State that your paper has not been published/is not under consideration by another journal. Also include if an earlier version of this paper was presented at a conference, and provide a detailed list of changes since the presentation.
• Provide nominations for two Senior Editors, two Associate Editors, and up to four reviewers. Make sure to include the rationale for your nominations. You may read more about this in the Editor Nominations section .
• Declare any conflicts of interest, or confirm there are none.
• Include contact information for yourself and any co-authors.

Things to Avoid

• Do not copy your abstract into your cover letter. Instead, explain the significance of your work and why it should be published in MIS Quarterly.
• Do not use too much jargon or acronyms. Keep your letter straightforward and easy to read.
• Avoid too much detail. Keep your cover letter to a maximum of two pages.

First Time Authors-Here's The Key To Getting Published

Free tips and resources for first time authors looking for publishing deals.

Subscribe via Email

Example Cover Letter For Manuscript Submission

Writing a Strong Cover letter  for Manuscript Submission

When you send your manuscript to a publisher or literary agent, you will need to include the following information;

– A letter of motivation

– A biography of the author

– A synopsis of your manuscript

– Selection of sample chapters

The first thing the editor or literary agent will see when they open the envelope for submission is your cover letter. It is so often overlooked by aspiring writers, and yet, if the letter you wrote is not up to par, then chances are the editor or literary agent will not continue to read the rest of your submission.

So what information to include in your cover letter for manuscript submission? Well, in general terms, there are three important things in your letter should focus on you, your book, and why your book is worthy of publication.

Summerdale publications Stewart Ferris reports that “when writing about himself, the goal of a paragraph that summarizes the highlights of what qualifies you to write this book. The editor has to know if you have had success before publishing, if you have the necessary preparation for writing his book, and if you write more books on the subject. ”

Then you need to think about what information to include in your cover letter that is directly related to the manuscript or book in question itself. You want to focus just maybe a paragraph of your letter on the content of the book itself, to give the reader a taste of what is to come in the synopsis, and finally in the complete manuscript. Focus briefly on the “who, where, when and what is happening” on the story line.

You must also include the reasons why his book should be published in his letter. Think about why the publisher would not be taking a big risk on the introduction of his book. Maybe you have some contacts that allow easy campaign to promote the book. Or maybe you’ve completed a large piece of market research that shows that there is real demand for your book. In addition, you may be aware of ways that could lead to a rapid and reliable market for his book – which can be a university professor with a guarantee that your book will become an essential text for your university, once published by example.

Finally, remember that your writing is on permanent display throughout the presentation of manuscripts.  So try to include a sentence or two that summarize the essence of your beautiful book.

If you send your manuscript by e-mail, your cover letter comes before your story that the main body of your e-mail, and always acts as your introduction. Your cover letter should be single-spaced, written in standard block or semi-block format, and a double space between paragraphs. If you mail your manuscript, you should consider writing your cover letter on plain white 8 ½ “by 11” paper.

As mentioned earlier, the number of parts in a letter may vary. But regardless of how many sections there are, some information that is normally specified in the cover letter includes the title of your story and your word count history. If you send your manuscript by mail, as opposed to e-mail, you can also specify that the self-addressed, stamped envelope (SASE) is closed and there is no need to return the manuscript .

What not to include in your cover letter for manuscript submission is a detailed description of its history. I also noticed some recent submission guidelines where publishers have emphasized the authors not to include photos of themselves with their offers. Make sure to always read the most recent guidelines published and send only what publishers require that you send. Disobeying submission guidelines can sometimes mean an automatic rejection of its short history.

Not all publishers will be required to send letters with his manuscript short story, but when a letter is necessary, try to think of your cover letter as well as a courtesy, the introduction of a tool, rather than an argument of sale. Let your cover letter to introduce, and let your story speak for itself. This is more acceptable and less rejected.

The numbered requirements which you posted tell you exactly what the company wants you do. Generally the type preferred is Times New Roman. You should be able to format your word processor to create the book’s pages as the company is asking. Once you’ve done that, you’ll be able to determine how many pages you’ll have, and, if your manuscript is completed, you can just print it. The paper which you use in your printer would naturally be good quality and the proper size. The normal font size is 10 point, but you can control that, too, in your word processor.

How do i correctly send my story to these publishers? How do i make my novel in this format? For example, what does it mean by typewritten pages?

How should I write my story, the font size, are the pages supposed to be back and front written or what?

How do i write it in this structure they gave me?

This is what they said to me… FORMAT FOR SUBMISSIONS 1. Submissions should consist of a book-length manuscript with a contemporary setting that will be suitable for readers ages 12 to 18.

2. Manuscripts should be no shorter than 100 typewritten pages and no longer than 224 typewritten pages. Include a brief plot summary with your covering letter.

3. Each manuscript should have a cover page listing the title of the novel; the author’s name, address, and telephone number.

4. Manuscripts should be typed double-spaced on 8-1/2″ x 11″ good quality white paper, and pages should be numbered consecutively. The type should be at least 10 point. The author should retain a copy of any manuscript submitted.

Writer’s Market: What else do I need? I’m purchasing the 2009 version of WM, but having never submitted any of my writing as a freelancer before, what else do I need to know that’s not included in this book? For example, will it tell me how to write a query letter, the dos and don’ts of my manuscript, and so on? At this point I have no idea if I should be sticking to a certain number of pages, what the format of my manuscript should be, and so on.

Basically, I’m trying to find out if the WM only gives listings, or if it will guide me step-by-step through the submission process.I would appreciate any guidance regarding websites or other publications for the first time writer, if you feel that WM does not cover some of the things I need to know.

Thanks in advance!

It does cover the basics, including how to format a manuscript and write a querry letter. Each book has articles on the publishing industry, submission process, and some author interviews.

consider joining absolutewrite.com/forum (the watercooler) for more assistance. It’s a large and knowledgable group with a wealth of information to share.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

About my blog

Glad you stopped by! Don't forget to sign up on the email list so you can get a free writing guide!

Recent Posts

• Effective Tips On Discovering the Best Book Publishing Companies In Chicago
• Literary Agents In Michigan
• Literary Agents In Minnesota
• Literary Agents In Missouri
• Literary Agents Mystery Fiction
• Young Adult Literary Agents Uk
• Literary Agents Los Angeles Nonfiction

Recent Comments

• Uncategorized
• September 2016
• February 2012
• January 2012
• December 2011
• November 2011
• October 2011
• September 2011
• August 2011
• February 2011
• January 2011
• December 2010
• November 2010
• October 2010
• February 2010
• January 2010

Powered by Flexibility 3

Writing a persuasive cover letter for your manuscript

Anthony Newman

Lora Heisler

About this video

Submitting your manuscript without a cover letter or an incomplete one can impact the outcome of your submission. Strong cover letters efficiently introduce your work to the editor, but also communicates why your paper is of interest to the journal audience and contributory to overall science. 

In this Researcher Academy module, experts Anthony Newman and Lora Heisler give you important insights about writing strong and persuasive cover letters. This webinar will give an exhaustive check list on writing an effective cover letter which brings attention to your paper and helps it get published.

You will come away with the knowledge of what cover letters are, how they support your manuscript and how you can write an airtight cover letter, covering your research scope, objectives and goals. 

About the presenters

Senior Publisher, Life Sciences, Elsevier

Anthony Newman is a Senior Publisher with Elsevier and is based in Amsterdam. Each year he presents numerous Author Workshops and other similar trainings worldwide. He is currently responsible for fifteen biochemistry and laboratory medicine journals, he joined Elsevier over thirty years ago and has been Publisher for more than twenty of those years. Before then he was the marketing communications manager for the biochemistry journals of Elsevier.  By training he is a polymer chemist and was active in the surface coating industry before leaving London and moving to Amsterdam in 1987 to join Elsevier.

Chair in Human Nutrition, The Rowett Institute, The Institute of Medical Sciences, University of Aberdeen.

Lora Heisler, Ph.D. is Chair in Human Nutrition at the Rowett Institute, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, where she is Head of the Obesity and Food Choice research theme.  Professor Heisler has enjoyed being an active member of various journal editorial boards for more than a decade.  She was appointed as Deputy Editor of Elsevier’s journal Molecular Metabolism in 2018. Professor Heisler received her B.A. from Boston University, M.Sc. from London School of Economics and Political Sciences and Ph.D. from Tufts University.  She undertook postdoctoral fellowships at the University of California at San Francisco and Beth Israel Deaconess/Harvard Medical School.  Professor Heisler began her independent research group at Harvard Medical School and then relocated to the University of Cambridge in the UK. Her active research group moved to the Rowett Institute, University of Aberdeen in 2013 where they investigate the neurobiology of obesity and type 2 diabetes.

What should be included in a cover letter?

Researcher Academy on Twitter

Complete Science Solutions

Comprehensive research consulting, writing, and presentation support.

• Research Consulting
• Grant Writing
• Manuscript Editing
• Statistical Analysis
• Professional Development
• Data Presentation

How to write a manuscript cover letter

• Get A Quote
• - Research Consulting
• - Grant Writing
• - Manuscript Editing
• - Statistical Analysis
• - Professional Development
• - Data Presentation
• - How to write a manuscript cover letter

I just finished passing around my nearly-finished manuscript with my co-authors and they have provided feedback. A year and a half of planning, executing and writing have resulted in this important document. I make my final edits, and voila, I am done! Am I ready to submit?  Not so fast. Most scientific journals require a manuscript cover letter that I must submit along with my manuscript. This guide outlines how to write a successful cover letter for your science manuscript.

Like the Specific Aims page of a grant, the cover letter is an opportunity to succinctly describe what you have done, describe how your findings will impact the field, and communicate why these findings are particularly relevant to the particular journal that you have chosen.

Editorial Review.

The manuscript cover letter is not a mere formality.  At many journals, you must pass an initial hurdle even before your paper is sent out for peer review:  editorial screening. Put simply, the editor will read your cover letter (and perhaps your abstract) and ask, “If everything the authors are telling me about their work is true, is the science of significant importance to the field and well-matched for our journal?”  At this editorial stage, the editor makes no judgment about the quality of your work.  Indeed, at this stage, the editor is giving you the benefit of the doubt that you have conducted sound research.

If the answer to the initial editorial question is “yes, this sounds like an interesting and significant study,” then the editor will send it out for peer review and reviewers will evaluate the scientific merit of the work.  But if the answer to the initial editorial question is no, then there is no need to advance the paper for peer review.  So you can see the importance of writing a compelling cover letter.  The cover letter is your chance to showcase the importance your science.

How to start.

Your cover letter should begin with a salutation addressing the Editor by name, (e.g., Dear Dr. Reynolds: ). If this information is not provided by the journal, then you can simply begin with “Dear Editor:” as your salutation. Your first sentence will always contain the title of your work.  A reasonable opening sentence would be as follows: “We are submitting a manuscript titled “[Insert title here]” that we wish to have considered for publication in [Insert journal name here].” Then, in a sentence or two, communicate the overall importance of what you have found and how it will impact the field – do not include details about your methods here (which you will save for the second paragraph). End with a sentence stating why this finding will be of interest of to the readers of the particular journal that you have chosen.

How to middle.

You should think of your second paragraph as a shorter version of your Abstract. Think about what you did in your Abstract. You provided the reader with some scientific context (i.e., this is what the field currently knows). Next, you summarized your Methods (i.e., this is what we did), and you provided your Results (i.e., this is what we found). Finally, you gave them a take home message (i.e., this is why you should care). You should do the same thing in this paragraph to the editor.  Be concise.  Four sentences.

[dropshadowbox align=”none” effect=”lifted-both” width=”auto” height=”” background_color=”#D3D3D3″ border_width=”1″ border_color=”#dddddd” ] “To our knowledge . . .”

Many researchers include statements like “Here we show for the first time . . .” or “To our knowledge, this is the first demonstration…” in the body of their manuscript. In the era of twitter and social media, this has become an increasingly popular phrase to throw about in scientific discourse, but it should be avoided in both your manuscript and your cover letter. History will record whether your work was the first of its kind, not you. Leave phrases like these out. [/dropshadowbox]

How to finish.

Your last paragraph should include a final statement assuring the editor that the work you have submitted has not been  a) simultaneously submitted elsewhere and b) previously published in part or in whole.  Similarly, you should alert the editor if your paper contains new data that have been combined with previously published data. This information should be included in the Methods section of your manuscript, where you will also provide the reference to where the previously published data can be found. Your cover letter should end by thanking the editor for their time and consideration.

Recommending Potential Reviewers.

Some journals will request that you provide them with the name and contact details of potential reviewers. First, make sure that you search potential reviewers online to ensure that you have the most up-to-date contact information for each person. Your job here is to make it easy for the editor to contact your suggested reviewers.  If an editor has trouble finding your suggested reviewer, they will simply select someone else.

Second, suggest people in the field that you know have the expertise to evaluate your work. The editor has been assigned your paper by the journal because they know the field well and, thus, they know the people who are qualified to review your manuscript.  Do not suggest a reviewer whose expertise is tangential to the subject matter at hand –  the editor will likely ignore your suggestion.

Third, suggest only potential reviewers with which you have no conflict of interest. If you have published with another scientist within the past few years, it would be inappropriate to suggest them as a reviewer.

Is it ok to exclude potential reviewers?

Some journals allow you to list non-preferred reviewers. Perhaps there is a scientist you feel simply does not respect your work or that you feel you are in direct competition with. It is always tricky to know what to do here. On the one hand, the editor may respect your request and exclude your non-preferred reviewer.  On the other hand, the editor may have great respect for your non-preferred reviewer and may now wish to know what their take on the work is. That is, you may have just suggested a reviewer that the editor might not have thought to involve in the first place.

In general, it is best to trust the scientific process and not get involved in excluding potential reviewers. Most scientists can put their biases aside and evaluate good science fairly. That said, if you do still wish to exclude a particular potential reviewer, it might help to include a statement in the final paragraph of your cover letter explaining the nature of the conflict of interest to the editor.

Ready to submit.

You are now done and ready to submit. I hope we have made it clear that when it comes to your cover letter, less is more . That is, keep it as brief as possible – no more than one page. Editors have to read many of these letters amidst their otherwise busy schedules. Say what you want to say as clearly and briefly as possible. For an example of a cover letter that we have edited click here .

Remember, different journals have different criteria for the cover letter. For example, some will want a full-page signed pdf on letterhead, whereas others may  have you enter your cover letter directly in their online submission form. Always check the Instructions for Authors section for specific guidelines relevant to your journal of choice. Finally, if you should have Complete Science Solutions edit your manuscript or grant , we will be happy to edit your cover letter for free . Either way, good luck with your letter and your submission.

Did you find this article helpful?  Please share and follow us:

Design Center

Writing a manuscript: cover letter.

• Most journals require a cover letter to be submitted with a manuscript
• Many ask that statements regarding funding, conflicts of interest, or copyright transfer be included in this letter – be sure to comply!
• Some will ask for a brief overview of your paper – this is your opportunity to summarize your entire manuscript in one or two sentences! Leave out all background or introductory information, and simply state what you found and why it’s important.
• If a journal accepts different types of articles (reviews, original articles, images), be sure to state what type of article you are submitting
• Many journals ask authors to suggest reviewers or even editors for their manuscripts: take advantage of this! If you know experts in the field, especially if they are favorable to your hypotheses or studies, suggest them as reviewers for your manuscript. While reviews are still anonymous (the reviewers won’t know whose paper they are reviewing), the journal will appreciate the suggestion(s) as this saves them time and likely helps you with knowing your paper is in the hands of a colleague who knows the subject matter well. This will also likely help speed up the review process.
• Close the letter by thanking the editor or journal for their consideration of your work
• Place the letter on official department, division, or professional letterhead

Sample Cover Letter

Dr. John Smith, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Ophthalmology

Dear Dr. Smith:

We are submitting our manuscript entitled “Taking antioxidants plus zinc reduces the risk of advanced age-related macular degeneration for high-risk patients,” for consideration for publication as an Original Article in Journal of Ophthalmology . This work has not been previously published and is not currently under consideration for publication  elsewhere. All authors have contributed significantly and have read and approved the submitted work.

Results from our randomized, controlled trial of drug X demonstrate significant improvement in patient symptoms. Drug X is a simple, cost-effective treatment that clinicians can implement easily and quickly into routine practice.

[Any required text: disclosures, funding, author participation, IRB/ACUC approval]

Thank you for your consideration of this manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you.

A. Thomas Jones, MD Associate Professor

• Cancer Cell
• Cell Chemical Biology
• Cell Host & Microbe
• Cell Metabolism
• Cell Reports
• Cell Stem Cell
• Cell Systems
• Current Biology
• Developmental Cell
• Molecular Cell
• Biochemical Sciences
• Biotechnology
• Cell Biology
• Cognitive Sciences
• Ecology & Evolution
• Endocrinology & Metabolism
• Microbiology
• Molecular Medicine
• Neurosciences
• Parisitology
• Pharmacological Sciences
• Plant Science
• Biophysical Journal
• EBioMedicine
• Molecular Plant
• Molecular Therapy Family
• Stem Cell Reports
• Get Inspired
• Get Techncal
• Get Published
• Cell Mentor China
• And They're Scientists, Too
• Biology in 3D
• Careers Under the Microscope
• Cell Insider
• Emilie, Can I Ask You?
• Random Walk
• The Female Scientist
• The Scientific Communicator
• Cell Symposia
• Cell Press Reviews
• China Gateway
• Snapshot Archive
• Cell Picture Show
• Cell Press Podcast
• Cell Press Videos
• Cell Career Network
• CrossTalk Blog
• Cell Selections
• Spotlight on China
• Trends: Limited Edition
• Chemistry & Biology
• Parasitology
• For Advertisers
• For Librarians
• For Recruiters

Submitting your manuscript: Write the right cover letter

It may seem obvious, but a journal editor's first serious impression of a submitted manuscript lies not only with the article title but also, rather simply, with the cover letter . The cover letter is your first "formal" interaction with a journal, and it embodies a request, so to speak, to consider your article for publication. But it also provides you with an excellent opportunity to present the significance of your scientific contribution.

I've worked as an editor for primary research and review manuscripts alike, and despite their many similarities, there are distinctions to writing the cover letter for each. Here are some helpful tips for writing a suitable cover letter for Cell Press scientific journals. 

Cover letter basics: What do we look for?

1. Let's start with content. We look for letters that start by succinctly explaining what was previously known in a given field and then state the authors' motivation for wishing to publish. Following that, the conceptual advance , timeliness, and novelty should be immediately conveyed. What sets apart this scientific contribution? What is the significance of the work, and where does the article lead us? Will this research be of interest to a broad readership?

2. Get to the point.  We want a concise letter that quickly gets to the main point and the take-home message; this sets the stage for your manuscript. Succinctly explain the topic of discussion, and quickly convey the key conclusions. Do not submit a long dissertation. Generally, one page suffices and is preferred.

3. Do not rehash the abstract of the paper. Copying and pasting the abstract into your cover letter verbatim is a big no-no. Instead, we seek a synthesis of the key points—possibly, and depending on style, the summary might resemble a brief story pitch in an elevator! But importantly, you need to venture beyond the summary: write a sentence that takes you further than the obvious conclusions. How does the content move the field forward? Are the implications far-reaching?

4. Get excited!  Authors' excitement about their scientific contributions can undoubtedly inspire the editor who's reading the cover letter. Overall, the sentiment of "you're gonna love reading this paper!" should seep through—make that happen!

5. Include a wish list of reviewers. Relevant information on potential reviewers (including their field of expertise) can be included and is definitely a plus, as it can be quite helpful to the editor. By contrast, please don't provide a long list of excluded reviewers (three maximum), and most certainly do not suggest excluding authors from entire continents on the map! Also, save the editor some time by specifying which author should be the  lead contact , and indicate their affiliation.

6. Keep it simple ... and humble. In terms of style, consider sincerity and simplicity . The letter should be humble and forthcoming; don't be ostentatious or florid. Claims of priority, if not fully supported, tend to be a turnoff. In addition, statements indicating that the article or related findings have been presented at X number of conferences and are "tremendously" well received by the scientific community—or otherwise—do not add much to the cover letter. They might instead suggest right off the bat that a lot of cooing and convincing of the journal editor will be required. So let the "science" speak for itself. Also, a statement declaring that the article is original and isn't being considered elsewhere can only add to your cause!

7. Proofread your letter by checking the spelling, grammar, and syntax. A well-written letter indicates that you take your submission seriously and that you are an author who pays attention to detail.

8. Check every detail. Avoid mistakes such as directing the cover letter to the editor(s) of a different journal, or to a different journal altogether. This might suggest that you've submitted your article elsewhere, that it might have been poorly received, and perhaps that the Cell Press journal you're submitting to isn't your first choice. It could also suggest that you don't pay sufficient attention to detail. Sadly, these sorts of errors continue to surprise me and happen more often than I would like.

The cover letter:  Primary research or Trends  reviews?

There are subtle differences in writing a cover letter for a primary research journal versus a  reviews journal, such as the Trends journals at Cell Press.

Many different article formats exist within both the primary research journals and the Trends journals. Make sure it's very clear which type of format you're submitting. As the Editor of Trends in Molecular Medicine , I find that this detail is not always specified by the author(s) in the cover letter. Knowing what type of manuscript you are submitting can help you fully nail down the cover letter in terms of the intent, scope, and take-home message of the article. It also recapitulates your prior agreement with the editor regarding article format: is it a review or an opinion piece?

Along these lines, the content of your cover letter will differ for a review or opinion piece as opposed to an original research contribution. For both, the timeliness and novelty need to strongly come across. However, for a research article, the specific advance relative to previous experimental findings needs to be clearly indicated. For a Trends article, the synthesis and conceptual advance should be particularly stated in terms of what is new and has been trending in the field for the last one to five years. For an opinion piece, take a strong and novel stance on a hypothesis or idea. Projecting into the future, beyond the main take-home message of the paper, is also a strong consideration for Trends articles.

I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the journal that you are submitting to—browse through the journal website and do your homework on author guidelines and the scope of the journal prior to submission! In the case of Trends journals, know who the editor is. Each Trends journal is run by a single editor, so beginning your cover letter with "Dear Madam" when the editor is male, or "Dear Sir" when the editor is female, may not create a favorable impression. While such mistakes are usually overruled by the content and quality of the science, it certainly helps to have your cover letter completely in order!

Keep on writing—we love hearing from you and receiving your submissions! For more tips on writing cover letters for scientific manuscripts, check out this page . Also read more from Cell Press Editor in Chief Emilie Marcus on when—and when not—to submit your paper .

Posted by Catarina Sacristán Catarina is the Editor of Trends in Molecular Medicine . She received her PhD in immunology from Tufts University, followed by postdoctoral research in Mexico and at NYU. She also did a stint in cardiovascular research at a biomedical engineering firm. She enjoys thinking about immunology, genetics, signaling, imaging, virology, metabolism, neuroscience, cancer, therapeutics, and more. She came to Cell Press from The Journal of Experimental Medicine . A movie buff, she also loves to read, write, ski, horseback ride. and dance.

Filed to From the editors , Submission , Get published , Cell Mentor

About Cell Mentor

Cell Mentor—an online resource from Cell Press and Cell Signaling Technology—empowers early-career researchers with career insights, publishing advice, and techniques on experimental processes and procedures. Now it’s even easier to tap into the knowledge and experience of experts who’ve walked in your shoes. 

Subscribe to Cell Mentor

Browse cell mentor by topic and type.

• Get Technical

Contact Cell Mentor

Explore cell mentor:, stay connected:.

Research Journals

• Cell Genomics
• Cell Reports Medicine
• Cell Reports Methods
• Chem Catalysis
• STAR Protocols

Trends Reviews Journals

Partner journals.

• HGG Advances
• Plant Communications
• The Innovation

Collections

• Best of Cell Press
• Cell Press Selections
• Consortia Hub
• Nucleus Collections
• SnapShot Archive
• Trends Limited Editions

EVOLVING THE ARTICLE

• STAR Methods
• Read-It-Now
• Recommend to Librarian

Information

• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Accessibility

BEYOND THE JOURNAL

• Cell Mentor

Science in Society

• Coloring and Comics
• Research Arc
• About Cell Press
• Help & Support
• Publication Alerts

Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. except certain content provided by third parties

A Creative Cover Letter For Manuscript Submission

Should you include a cover letter when you submit a manuscript for journal publication? Of course, you do! Especially if the submission is unsolicited. That is you are cold-pitching an editor or offering something outside of the commission. Your cover letter will contain important introductory information, and contextualize what you are providing.

So, how do you proceed? Use our cover letter example as a reference point. Then customize it using the bonus cover letter writing tips.

Cover Letter Sample For Manuscript Submission in .docx Format

Download example (Word version)

Cover Letter For Manuscript Submission Example – Text Format

Dear Ms. Jeffries,

My name is Thomas Ninja, and I am a Ph.D. candidate studying Modern Culture at the University of Pennsylvania. I am submitting my manuscript titled, ‘The Cultural Impact of The Art of Ninjutsu’ for consideration as a Cultural Studies Journal research article.

This work reflects 9 months of research on the evolution of Ninjutsu from its use as a tool of covert warfare in Feudal Japan to its role in pop culture today. Along the way, I uncovered some meaningful connections between this metamorphosis and other socio-political changes that were also occurring in parallel. My research corroborates previous studies indicating that current events impact public embrace or objection to martial arts.

I believe this submission will be useful to your readers, as it addresses the topic of both modern and ancient using a unique phenomenon as a lens. The research stands to benefit students researching Pacific Rim Studies, Western Film and Pop Culture, and other phenomena.

I am submitting this work to you on May, 23rd, 2021. This work has not been published in another journal, nor is it in consideration for publication. I have informed my advisor as well as the two contributing researchers that I am submitting this work to you, and have obtained their permission to do so. Their names are listed in the attached document.

Please let me know at your convenience if you are interested in publishing this research.

Thomas Ninja

Tips For Writing a Great Cover Letter For Manuscript Submission

As you can see, this is a short cover letter . But it still packs a punch. In general, manuscript cover letters should not run too long as you are probably addressing a busy editor. The above means that every word should count. The follow-up tips will help you write your cover letter, format it correctly, and pitch it to the right publishers.

Get All The Right Information In

The person reading your cover letter will be looking for some specific information. Some of this will be in the header of your letter. But, there is a significant amount of data to include in the body of your letter as well. 

Use the following as a checklist:

• The name of the editor
• The name of the journal
• The title of your manuscript
• Date of Submission
• The type of manuscript you are submitting
• Information on your research
• Your methodology and instruments
• What your conclusions are, and their impact on your discipline
• Your contact information

Avoid Over The Top Descriptions

You are submitting an academic manuscript for publishing consideration. You aren’t selling a novel, pitching poetry , or convincing a hiring manager that you are the best fit for the job. Keep things formal and understated. (Even if you really want to get your research published!). Avoid using excessive superlatives to describe the research you’ve done or the work you are submitting. 

Don’t write your cover letter to include phrases like ‘groundbreaking’ or ‘disruptive’. Also, don’t bury the reader in pointless jargon. If it can be communicated in plain English, do that. If it cannot be, provide a simple explanation.

Keep it Brief

A cover letter for manuscript submission should be three paragraphs at most. Present yourself and your research in paragraph one. Use paragraph two to detail how and why your work is relevant. Add a third paragraph to cover any formalities. That’s it. You are good to hit Send. 

Confirm Your Permissions

The publisher will want to know that your work can be published without any issues. You need to assure them that they can. 

To do so, include a statement that addresses the following points:

• That you haven’t had the work published in other journals , or have permission from previous publishers.
• You have obtained clearance from other researchers to submit the manuscript.
• The manuscript is owned by you, and you have the right to submit it

Follow Instructions To a Dot 

Research the journal and publisher. They probably have specific submission instructions. For example, they may dictate that all work is submitted as a PDF document. Or that you send them a separate list of research links. Take a few minutes to comply, so that you don’t lose an opportunity to be published.

Final Tip: Have a Response Prepared

Publishing in academics journals can be an involved process. The publisher may have additional questions for you. For example, you may be asked for article examples from their journal that are similar to theirs. They may also ask to clarify your research methods. Identify what might bring up more questions, and have some answers prepared.

Other Cover Letter Samples

Medical device sales cover letter example, case manager cover letter example and quick writing guide, a professional biotech cover letter example, cover letter example for mechanic (+writing tips).

A huge collection of cover letters created by a ninja team of writers and career advisors. Learn how to write, style and file cover letters that employers actually enjoy reading.

© Copyright 2023 Cover Letter Ninjas

• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Terms and Conditions
• Disclosure Policy

• Login | Register

How to write a cover letter to accompany your manuscript

In this post, we discuss some of the important points to consider when preparing a cover letter to accompany the submission of your manuscript to a journal.

What is a cover letter and why is it important?

Most journals require a cover letter to be submitted when you submit a manuscript that you wish to be considered for publication. A common thing that authors sometimes do, however, is to treat the cover letter as an afterthought, something to be written quickly, perhaps just copying and pasting parts of the abstract. This is a mistake. The cover letter is a vital part of the submission process – it may even be the only part of your submission that a busy editor at a top journal will read!

Bearing this in mind, your cover letter must capture a reader’s attention. That way, they may be sufficiently interested to go on and read your abstract, and potentially your entire manuscript. It is therefore essential to spend some time preparing your cover letter.

Tips on how to prepare the perfect cover letter

• Keep your cover letter brief – ideally, it should be no longer than one page.
• Address your cover letter to the Editor-in-Chief of your target journal. Their name can be found on the journal’s website.
• At the top of your letter, include the date, the Editor-in-Chief’s full name, and the full name of the journal. Make sure you use their correct title (for example Doctor or Professor) – and make sure you spell their name correctly!
• The letter itself should begin with “Dear” and the title and name of the Editor-in-Chief.
• Your cover letter should focus on what is original or unique about your work and the question or problem your research has addressed. Importantly, you should make it clear why your manuscript will be of interest to the readership of your target journal.
• If you and your co-authors have no competing interests to declare, you should add a sentence saying this. You should also state that all authors have agreed to the manuscript being submitted, and that it is not under consideration for publication in another journal.
• To end your cover letter, sign off with “Yours Sincerely”, followed by your title (for example Doctor or Professor) and your full name. This should be followed by your contact details – your professional email address will usually be sufficient.

Common errors to avoid when preparing your cover letter

• Don’t be tempted to simply copy and paste some (or all!) of your abstract.
• Don’t describe your manuscript as a “first draft”.
• Don’t write “Please find attached…” Instead, write something like “We are writing with regard to our manuscript entitled “( the title of your manuscript )”.
• Avoid using too much jargon or a lot of abbreviations or acronyms.
• Check carefully for any spelling and grammar errors – ideally, have someone else proofread your cover letter before submitting it.

Further study for this week

If you have time for further study this week, try writing a cover letter for a manuscript that you are planning to submit to a journal.

And that’s it – some simple steps to follow to help you craft the perfect cover letter for submission with your manuscript!

• Discoveries
• Right Journal
• Journal Metrics
• Journal Fit
• Abbreviation
• In-Text Citations
• Bibliographies
• Writing an Article
• Peer Review Types
• Acknowledgements
• Withdrawing a Paper
• Form Letter
• ISO, ANSI, CFR
• Google Scholar
• Journal Manuscript Editing
• Research Manuscript Editing

Book Editing

• Manuscript Editing Services

Medical Editing

• Bioscience Editing
• Physical Science Editing
• PhD Thesis Editing Services
• PhD Editing
• Master’s Proofreading
• Bachelor’s Editing
• Dissertation Proofreading Services
• Best Dissertation Proofreaders
• Masters Dissertation Proofreading
• PhD Proofreaders
• Proofreading PhD Thesis Price
• Journal Article Editing
• Book Editing Service
• Editing and Proofreading Services
• Research Paper Editing
• Medical Manuscript Editing
• Academic Editing
• Social Sciences Editing
• Academic Proofreading
• PhD Theses Editing
• Dissertation Proofreading
• Proofreading Rates UK
• Medical Proofreading
• PhD Proofreading Services UK
• Academic Proofreading Services UK

Medical Editing Services

• Life Science Editing
• Biomedical Editing
• Environmental Science Editing
• Pharmaceutical Science Editing
• Economics Editing
• Psychology Editing
• Sociology Editing
• Archaeology Editing
• History Paper Editing
• Anthropology Editing
• Law Paper Editing
• Engineering Paper Editing
• Technical Paper Editing
• Philosophy Editing
• PhD Dissertation Proofreading
• Lektorat Englisch
• Akademisches Lektorat
• Lektorat Englisch Preise
• Wissenschaftliches Lektorat
• Lektorat Doktorarbeit

PhD Thesis Editing

• Thesis Proofreading Services
• PhD Thesis Proofreading
• Proofreading Thesis Cost
• Proofreading Thesis
• Thesis Editing Services
• Professional Thesis Editing
• Thesis Editing Cost
• Proofreading Dissertation
• Dissertation Proofreading Cost
• Dissertation Proofreader
• Correção de Artigos Científicos
• Correção de Trabalhos Academicos
• Serviços de Correção de Inglês
• Correção de Dissertação
• Correção de Textos Precos
• 定額 ネイティブチェック
• Copy Editing
• FREE Courses
• Revision en Ingles
• Revision de Textos en Ingles
• Revision de Tesis
• Revision Medica en Ingles
• Revision de Tesis Precio
• Revisão de Artigos Científicos
• Revisão de Trabalhos Academicos
• Serviços de Revisão de Inglês
• Revisão de Dissertação
• Revisão de Textos Precos
• Corrección de Textos en Ingles
• Corrección de Tesis
• Corrección de Tesis Precio
• Corrección Medica en Ingles
• Corrector ingles

Select Page

Always Include a Cover Letter When Submitting a Manuscript

Posted by Rene Tetzner | Apr 27, 2021 | How To Get Published | 0 |

Always Include a Cover Letter When Submitting a Manuscript An aspiring author recently pointed out to me that, as much as he would like to include a covering letter when he submits a scholarly article to the acquisitions editor of a scientific journal, there is often no box or option in online submission forms for pasting or attaching such an introductory letter. In addition, there is often no indication of where within a manuscript submitted for consideration an author might place such a letter to introduce the research and document. The lack of obvious instructions does not necessarily mean that a covering letter cannot be included or even that the acquisitions editor does not want to read one, but it does mean that the determined author will have to devise an effective strategy to have his or her opportunity for a brief explanation to orient this all-important reader.

The first thing to do is to read all of the publisher’s instructions and guidelines for authors with your eyes alert to any information about covering letters, which may alternatively be called cover letters or introductory letters. If you discover that the journal or press specifically states that a covering letter is not wanted, do not include one. It is always best not to antagonise a busy acquisitions editor with extraneous information, and a good paper can stand on its own when necessary. If the instructions do not mention covering letters at all or suggest that a covering letter is not required but do not in any way prohibit the inclusion of one, it is usually acceptable and often helpful to send such a letter along with your submission.

However, you will need to determine exactly where and how to present your letter. It is important not to give the impression of sneaking the letter into your submission or pulling one over on an editor. Neither of these strategies is respectful or effective, but do examine online submission forms for approaches that may be. The form may not have a ‘paste your covering letter here’ box or an ‘attach your covering letter here’ option (though it may, so keep your eyes open), but it might very well have an ‘additional information about your paper’ or even a ‘special instructions’ box that will give you an opportunity to say one or two key things about your research and manuscript. Such boxes can be used much as a covering letter would be to provide information about the importance of your work and its appropriateness for that particular journal, but do be sure to keep a close eye on word and character limits, give your statements serious thought before submitting the form and do not provide information that is explicitly prohibited.

Another option is to make your covering letter the first page of your manuscript, though special care is necessary if you decide to do this. Some journals have very strict guidelines about the content and organisation of manuscripts submitted for publication and will not tolerate additions any more than omissions. If the peer review process of the journal is blind, all personal information about you will have to be eliminated from the manuscript, and a covering letter would not be appropriate. In such cases, however, personal information is usually provided to the editor separately, and that, too, may offer an opportunity to include a brief statement akin to a covering letter, particularly if you are able to send this personal information as a separate document. If, on the other hand, all personal data must be provided through the boxes of an online form, there may be nowhere to include such information, and it will probably be better to go without a covering letter than to include one where it may cause problems. Do keep in mind, however, that an online box or other option for offering an author biography provides yet another excellent opportunity to introduce your research and manuscript briefly but effectively.

You might be interested in Services offered by Proof-Reading-Service.com

Journal editing.

Journal article editing services

PhD thesis editing services

Scientific Editing

Manuscript editing.

Manuscript editing services

Expert Editing

Expert editing for all papers

Research Editing

Research paper editing services

Professional book editing services

Related Posts

Choosing the Right Journal

September 10, 2021

Example of a Quantitative Research Paper

September 4, 2021

What Is a Good H-Index Required for an Academic Position?

September 3, 2021

Acknowledgements Example for an Academic Research Paper

September 1, 2021

Our Recent Posts

Our review ratings

• Examples of Research Paper Topics in Different Study Areas Score: 98%
• Dealing with Language Problems – Journal Editor’s Feedback Score: 95%
• Making Good Use of a Professional Proofreader Score: 92%
• How To Format Your Journal Paper Using Published Articles Score: 95%
• Journal Rejection as Inspiration for a New Perspective Score: 95%

Explore our Categories

• Abbreviation in Academic Writing (4)
• Career Advice for Academics (5)
• Dealing with Paper Rejection (11)
• Grammar in Academic Writing (5)
• Help with Peer Review (7)
• How To Get Published (146)
• Paper Writing Advice (17)
• Referencing & Bibliographies (16)

Instructions for Authors

Contact Monica Mungle for help if edits are needed to the top section.

Original Investigation

Caring for the critically ill patient, brief report, research letter, systematic review (without meta-analysis), narrative review, special communication, clinical challenge, diagnostic test interpretation, a piece of my mind, letter to the editor, letter in reply.

• Randomized Clinical Trial
• Parallel-Design Double-blind Trial
• Crossover Trial
• Equivalence and Noninferiority Trial
• Cluster Trial
• Nonrandomized Clinical Trial

Meta-analysis

• Cohort Study
• Case-Control Study
• Cross-sectional Study
• Case Series
• Economic Evaluation
• Decision Analytical Model
• Comparative Effectiveness Research
• Genetic Association Study
• Diagnostic/Prognostic Study
• Quality Improvement Study
• Survey Study
• Qualitative Study

Manuscript Submission

Copies of previous editorial and reviewer comments, cover letter, manuscript style, manuscript components, recommended file sizes, manuscript file formats, abbreviations, units of measure, names of drugs, devices, and other products, gene names, symbols, and accession numbers, reproduced and re-created material, online-only supplements and multimedia.

What to Expect

Editorial and Peer Review

The jama network advantage.

• JAMA-Express

Authorship Form and Publishing Agreement

Publication.

• Postpublication Online Commenting

Reprints/e-Prints

Corrections, previous publication, related manuscripts and reports, and preprints, previous or planned meeting presentation or release of information, embargo policy, research article public access, depositing in repositories, and discoverability.

Editorial Policies for Authors

Authorship and Disclosures

Authorship criteria and contributions, role of the corresponding author, changes in authorship, name change policy, group authorship, conflicts of interest and financial disclosures, funding/support and role of funder/sponsor, data access, responsibility, and analysis, acknowledgment section, equator reporting guidelines, use of causal language, timeliness of data, statistical methods and data presentation, reporting demographic information for study participants, ethical approval of studies and informed consent, patient identification, use of ai in publication and research, personal communications and unpublished data, manuscripts that pose security risks.

Journal Policies, Forms, Resources

Decisions and Management of Editorial Conflicts of Interest

Publishing agreement, unauthorized use.

• Patient Permission Form
• AMA Manual of Style
• EQUATOR Network
• About This Journal

Contact Information

JAMA , Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, PhD, MD, MAS, Editor in Chief, 330 N Wabash Ave, Chicago, IL 60611-5885; telephone: (312) 464-4444; fax: (312) 464-5824; email: [email protected] . Manuscripts should be submitted online at http://manuscripts.jama.com .

Determine My Article Type

Categories of articles.

Original Investigation full info

Clinical trial Meta-analysis Intervention study Cohort study Case-control study Epidemiologic assessment Survey with high response rate Cost-effectiveness analysis Decision analysis Study of screening and diagnostic tests Other observational study

• ≤5 tables and/or figures
• Structured abstract

Data Sharing Statement

Follow EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines

Caring for the Critically Ill Patient full info

Original research reports, preferably clinical trials or systematic reviews that address virtually any aspect of critical illness, from prevention and triage, through resuscitation and acute treatment, to rehabilitation and palliative care.

• See also requirements for Clinical Trial , Meta-analysis , and Systematic Review

Brief Report full info

Short reports of original studies or evaluations or unique, first-time reports of clinical case series.

It is very rare for this journal to publish case reports.

• 15 references
• ≤3 tables and/or figures

Research Letter full info

Concise, focused reports of original research. Can include any of the study types listed under Original Investigation.

• ≤6 references
• ≤2 small tables and/or figures
• No Abstract or Key Points

Back to top

Clinical Review and Education

Systematic Review (without meta-analysis) full info

This article type requires a presubmission inquiry. See the "full info" below for requirements and contact information.

Critical assessments of the literature and data sources pertaining to clinical topics, emphasizing factors such as cause, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, or prevention.

Systematic Reviews without meta-analysis are published as Reviews; those with meta-analysis are published as Original Investigations (see Meta-analysis ).

• 50-75 references
• A PRISMA-style flow diagram should be included as an online supplement
• Include a table with ratings of the quality of the studies/evidence
• Subtitle should be "A Systematic Review"

Narrative Review full info

Up-to-date review for clinicians on a topic of general common interest from the perspective of internationally recognized experts in these disciplines.

The focus should be an update on current understanding of the physiology of the disease or condition, diagnostic consideration, and treatment.

These reviews should address a specific question or issue that is relevant for clinical practice.

• 2000-3500 words
• 3-part structured abstract
• No Key Points
• Subtitle should be "A Review"

Special Communication full info

This journal publishes very few of these types of articles.

These manuscripts describe an important issue in clinical medicine, public health, health policy, or medical research in a scholarly, thorough, well-referenced, systematic, and evidence-based manner.

• 50 references
• ≤4 tables and/or figures
• Requires a presubmission inquiry

Clinical Challenge full info

Presents an actual patient case with a specific disease or condition with an accompanying clinical image.

• "What Would You Do Next?" with 4 single-phrase plausible treatment options describing possible courses of action with 1 being preferred
• Case presentation: 250 words
• Discussion: 500-600 words
• ≤10 references
• 1-2 small figures
• Patient permission required

Diagnostic Test Interpretation full info

This article requires a presubmission inquiry.

Presentation of the results of a diagnostic test from a single patient with exploration of the clinical application of the test result; intended to help clinicians understand the underlying rationale in ordering tests, interpreting test results, and acting on the diagnostic test findings.

• How Do You Interpret These Test Results? (or What Would You Do Next?) with 4 plausible responses
• Case presentation: 200 words
• Discussion: 650 words

Viewpoint full info

May address virtually any important topic in medicine, public health, research, discovery, prevention, ethics, health policy, or health law and generally are not linked to a specific article.

• 1200 words (or 1000 words with 1 small table or figure)
• ≤7 references at submission
• ≤3 authors, with no more than 2 affiliations per author

A Piece of My Mind full info

Personal vignettes (eg, exploring the dynamics of the patient-physician relationship) taken from wide-ranging experiences in medicine; occasional pieces express views and opinions on the myriad issues that affect the profession.

• ≤1600 words
• Patient permission may be needed

Poetry full info

Original poems related to the medical experience, whether from the point of view of a health care worker or patient, or simply an observer.

• No longer than 44 lines

Correspondence

Letter to the Editor full info

Letters discussing a recent article in this journal should be submitted within 4 weeks of the article's publication in print.

• ≤5 references (1 of which should be to the recent article)

Letter in Reply full info

Replies by authors of original articles to letters from readers.

Determine My Study Type

Randomized Clinical Trial full info

A trial that prospectively assigns participants to intervention or comparison groups to study the cause-and-effect relationship between an intervention and a health outcome. Interventions include but are not limited to drugs, surgical procedures, devices, behavioral treatments, educational programs, dietary interventions, quality improvement interventions, process-of-care changes, and the like.

• ≤5 tables and/or figures, including CONSORT flow diagram
• Subtitle should be "A Randomized Clinical Trial"
• Trial registration and ID
• Trial protocol
• CONSORT checklist
• Follow CONSORT Reporting Guidelines

Parallel-Design Double-blind Trial full info

A randomized trial that prospectively assigns participants to 2 or more groups to receive different interventions. Participants and those administering the interventions are unaware of which intervention individual participants are receiving.

Crossover Trial full info

A trial in which participants receive more than 1 of the treatments under investigation, usually in a randomly determined sequence, and with a prespecified amount of time (washout period) between sequential treatments.

Equivalence and Noninferiority Trial full info

A trial designed to assess whether the treatment or intervention under study (eg, a new intervention) is no worse than an existing alternative (eg, an active control). In these trials, authors must prespecify a margin of noninferiority that is consistent with all relevant studies and within which the new intervention can be assumed to be no worse than the active control.

Cluster Trial full info

A trial that includes random assignment of groups rather than individuals to intervention and control groups.

Nonrandomized Clinical Trial full info

A trial that prospectively assigns groups or populations to study the efficacy or effectiveness of an intervention but in which the assignment to the intervention occurs through self-selection or administrator selection rather than through randomization. Control groups can be historic, concurrent, or both. This design is sometimes called a quasi-experimental design.

• ≤5 tables and/or figures, including a trial flow diagram
• Subtitle should be "A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial"
• TREND checklist

Meta-analysis full info

A systematic review that includes a statistical technique for quantitatively combining the results of multiple studies that measure the same outcome into a single pooled or summary estimate.

• Subtitle should include "A Meta-analysis"
• Follow PRISMA Reporting Guidelines or MOOSE Reporting Guidelines

Cohort Study full info

An observational study that follows a group (cohort) of individuals who are initially free of the outcome of interest. Individuals in the cohort may share some underlying characteristic, such as age, sex, diagnosis, exposure to a risk factor, or treatment.

• Follow STROBE Reporting Guidelines

Case-Control Study full info

An observational study designed to determine the association between an exposure and outcome in which study participants are selected by outcome. Those with the outcome (cases) are compared with those without the outcome (controls) with respect to an exposure or event. Cases and controls may be matched according to specific characteristics (eg, age, sex, or duration of disease).

Cross-sectional Study full info

An observational study of a defined population at a single point in time or during a specific interval, in which exposure and outcome are ascertained simultaneously.

Case Series full info

An observational study that describes a selected group of participants with similar exposure or treatment and without a control group. A case series may also involve observation of larger units such as groups of hospitals or municipalities, as well as smaller units such as laboratory samples.

• Follow Reporting Guidelines

Economic Evaluation full info

A study using formal, quantitative methods to compare 2 or more treatments, programs, or strategies with respect to their resource use and expected outcomes. This includes cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, and cost-minimization analyses.

• Follow CHEERS Reporting Guidelines

Decision Analytical Model full info

A mathematical modeling study that compares consequences of decision options by synthesizing information from multiple sources and applying mathematical simulation techniques, usually with specific software. Reporting should address the relevant non-cost aspects of the CHEERS guideline.

Comparative Effectiveness Research full info

A study that compares different interventions or strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor health conditions to determine which work best for which patients, under what circumstances, and are associated with the greatest benefits and harms.

• Follow ISPOR Reporting Guidelines

Genetic Association Study full info

A study that attempts to identify and characterize genomic variants that may be associated with susceptibility to multifactorial disease.

• Follow STREGA Reporting Guidelines

Diagnostic/Prognostic Study full info

A prospective study designed to develop, validate, or update the diagnostic or prognostic accuracy of a test or model.

• Follow STARD Reporting Guidelines or TRIPOD Reporting Guidelines

Quality Improvement Study full info

A study that uses data to define, measure, and evaluate a health care practice or service to maintain or improve the appropriateness, quality, safety, or value of that practice or service.

• Follow SQUIRE Reporting Guidelines

Survey Study full info

A survey study includes a representative sample of individuals who are asked to describe their opinions, attitudes, or behaviors. Survey studies should have sufficient response rates (generally ≥60%) and appropriate characterization of nonresponders to ensure that nonresponse bias does not threaten the validity of the findings.

• Follow AAPOR Best Practices for Survey Research
• Optional: Survey instrument as supplemental file

Qualitative Study full info

A study based on observation and interview with individuals that uses inductive reasoning and a theoretical sampling model and that focuses on social and interpreted, rather than quantifiable, phenomena and aims to discover, interpret, and describe rather than to test and evaluate. This includes mixed-methods studies that combine quantitative and qualitative designs in a sequential or concurrent manner.

• Follow SRQR Reporting Guidelines or COREQ Reporting Guidelines

These reports typically include randomized trials (see Clinical Trial ), intervention studies, cohort studies, case-control studies, epidemiologic assessments, other observational studies, surveys with high response rates (see Reports of Survey Research ), cost-effectiveness analyses and decision analyses (see Reports of Cost-effectiveness Analyses and Decision Analyses ), and studies of screening and diagnostic tests (see also Reports of Diagnostic Tests ). Each manuscript should clearly state an objective or hypothesis; the design and methods (including the study setting and dates, patients or participants with inclusion and exclusion criteria and/or participation or response rates, or data sources, and how these were selected for the study); the essential features of any interventions; the main outcome measures; the main results of the study; a discussion section placing the results in context with the published literature and addressing study limitations; and the conclusions and relevant implications for clinical practice or health policy. Data included in research reports must be original and should be as timely and current as possible (see Timeliness of Data ). Follow EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines .

A structured abstract is required; for more information, see instructions for preparing Abstracts for Reports of Original Data . A list of 3 Key Points is required (see guidance on preparing Key Points ). Maximum length: 3000 words of text (not including abstract, tables, figures, acknowledgments, references, and online-only material) with no more than a total of 5 tables and/or figures.

These manuscripts are original research reports, preferably clinical trials, or systematic reviews (see above classifications for manuscript submission requirements by category of article) that address virtually any aspect of critical illness, from prevention and triage, through resuscitation and acute treatment, to rehabilitation and palliative care. Manuscripts that provide new insights into the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of critically ill patients, as well as those that explore pathophysiological, technological, ethical, or other related aspects of critical care medicine, are welcome. Follow EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines . For reports of original data and systematic reviews, a structured abstract is required; see instructions for preparing Abstracts for Reports of Original Data or Abstracts for Reviews . A list of 3 Key Points is required (see guidance on preparing Key Points ). Maximum length: 3000 words of text (not including abstract, tables, figures, acknowledgments, references, and online-only material) with no more than a total of 5 tables and/or figures.

These manuscripts are short reports of original studies or evaluations or unique, first-time reports of clinical case series. Follow EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines . A structured abstract is required; for more information, see instructions for preparing Abstracts for Reports of Original Data . A list of 3 Key Points is required (see guidance on preparing Key Points ). Recommended length: 1200 words (not including abstract, tables, figures, acknowledgments, references, and online-only material) with no more than a total of 3 tables and/or figures and no more than 15 references. Note: It is very rare for this journal to publish case reports.

Research Letters are concise, focused reports of original research. These should not exceed 600 words of text and 6 references and may include up to 2 tables or figures. Online supplementary material is only allowed for brief additional and absolutely necessary methods but not for any additional results or discussion. The text should include the full name, academic degrees, and institutional affiliation for each author and the email address for the corresponding author. Other persons who have contributed to the study may be indicated in an Acknowledgment, with their permission, including their academic degrees, affiliation, contribution to the study, and an indication if compensation was received for their role. Letters must not duplicate other material published or submitted for publication. In general, Research Letters should be divided into the following sections: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. They should not include an abstract or key points, but otherwise should follow all of the guidelines in Manuscript Preparation and Submission Requirements . Letters not meeting these specifications are generally not considered.

This article type requires a presubmission inquiry to [email protected] .

The journal will consider 2 types of review articles:

Systematic Reviews

These types of Review articles differ by the scope and level of analysis of the literature searches and the titles used. Systematic Reviews require a complete systematic search of the literature using multiple databases, covering many years, and grading of the quality of the cited evidence. Narrative Reviews do not require a rigorous literature search but should rely on evidence and should be written by established experts in the field. See below for more detail on each type of Review.

Titles for these Reviews should include a concise description of the main topic. Use specific and not overly broad wording for the title; the type of review should be indicated in the subtitle. For example:

Behavioral Treatment of Obesity: A Systematic Review

Behavioral Treatment of Obesity: A Review (note: the word "narrative" is not included in the subtitle)

Systematic Reviews are critical assessments of the literature and data sources pertaining to clinical topics, emphasizing factors such as cause, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, or prevention. Systematic Reviews without meta-analysis are published as Reviews; those with meta-analysis are published as Original Investigations (see Meta-analysis ). Systematic Reviews should address a specific question or issue that is relevant for clinical practice and provide an evidence-based, balanced, patient-oriented review on a focused topic. Follow EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines .

The basic structure of manuscripts reporting Systematic Reviews should include the following: Abstract (structured abstract of no more than 350 words); Introduction (150-250 words); Methods (150-250 words); Results (1000-1250 words, with the following subsections, if appropriate, depending on the specific question or issue addressed: Pathophysiology, Clinical Presentation, Assessment and Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prognosis); Discussion (1000 words); and Conclusions (2-3 sentences).

Maximum length: 3000 words of text (not including abstract, tables, figures, acknowledgments, references, and online-only material), with no more than a total of 5 tables and/or figures and no more than 50-75 references. For an example of a published Systematic Review, see JAMA . 2014;312(6):631-640 and below for the general structure of a Systematic Review article.

Prospective authors interested in submitting a review manuscript should prepare a detailed outline of the proposed article. There should also be a brief summary of the extent and quality of the literature supporting the proposed review. Alternatively, if a draft of the manuscript has been completed, this can be sent. Prospective authors should also summarize their publication record in the field. Send this information to the editorial office via email to Mary McDermott, MD, at [email protected] .

Specific Components of a Systematic Review

Key Points (75-100 words)

This feature provides a quick structured synopsis of the Review, following 3 key points: Question, Findings, and Meaning. Limit to no more than 100 words. This is different from the Abstract.

Question: What are the most effective medical treatments for adult chronic sinusitis? Findings: In this systematic review, symptoms of chronic sinusitis were improved with saline irrigation and topical corticosteroid therapy compared to no therapy. Compared with placebo, 3-week courses of systemic corticosteroids or oral doxycycline were associated with reduced polyp size, and a 3-month course of macrolide antibiotic was associated with improved symptoms in patients without polyps. Meaning: First-line therapy for chronic sinusitis should begin with daily topical intranasal corticosteroid in conjunction with saline irrigation; subsequent therapies should be based on the patient's polyp status and severity of symptoms.

Abstract (350 words)

A structured abstract is required; Systematic Review articles should include a structured abstract of no more than 350 words using the headings listed below.

Importance: Include 1 or 2 sentences describing the clinical question or issue and its importance in clinical practice or public health. Objective: State the precise primary objective of the review. Indicate whether the review emphasizes factors such as cause, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, or prevention and include information about the specific population, intervention, exposure, and tests or outcomes that are being reviewed. Evidence Review: Describe the information sources used, including the search strategies, years searched, and other sources of material, such as subsequent reference searches of retrieved articles. Methods used for inclusion of identified articles and quality assessment should be explained. Findings: Include a brief summary of the number of articles included, numbers of various types of studies (eg, clinical trials, cohort studies), and numbers of patients/participants represented by these studies. Summarize the major findings of the review of the clinical issue or topic in an evidence-based, objective, and balanced fashion, with the highest-quality evidence available receiving the greatest emphasis. Provide quantitative data. Conclusions and Relevance: The conclusions should clearly answer the questions posed if applicable, be based on available evidence, and emphasize how clinicians should apply current knowledge. Conclusions should be based only on results described in the abstract Findings subsection.

Introduction (150-250 words)

The first 2 to 3 sentences of the Introduction should draw in readers such that they want to continue reading the article and should establish the importance of the Review. Reviews should include the clinical question or issue and its importance for general medical practice, specialty practice, or public health. The first paragraph should provide a general summary of the clinical problem (eg, obesity). The next paragraph should focus on the specific aspect of the clinical problem the article will explore (eg, treatments for obesity). The epidemiology of the disease or condition should be briefly summarized and generally should include disease prevalence and incidence. The third paragraph should discuss exactly what material will be covered in the Review (eg, obesity treatments reported in trials with a minimum follow-up of 2 years including 80% of the original cohort).

Methods/Literature Search (150-250 words)

The literature search should be as current as possible, ideally with end dates within a month or two before manuscript submission. A search of the primary literature should be conducted, including multiple bibliographic databases (eg, PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO). This can be facilitated by collaborating with a medical librarian to help with the search.

Briefly describe characteristics of the literature searched and included in the review, following the PRISMA reporting guidelines , including the bibliographic databases and other sources searched, search terms used, dates included in the search, date the literature search was conducted, screening process, language limitations, and inclusion and exclusion criteria. The rating system used to evaluate the quality of the evidence should be specified (see table below) and the methods used to evaluate quality should be described, including number of quality raters, how agreement on quality ratings was assessed, and how disagreements on quality ratings were resolved.

The highest-quality evidence (eg, randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and high-quality prospective cohort studies) should receive the greatest emphasis. Clinical practice guidelines ordinarily should not be used as a primary component of the evidence base for the systematic review, although relevant guidelines should be addressed in the Discussion section of the article.

The search methods should be described in sufficient detail so the search can be reproduced based on the information provided in the manuscript. A summary of the methods of the literature search including this information should be included in the main article; details can be included in an online-only supplement. A PRISMA-style flow diagram showing this information should also be included as an online-only supplement. In addition, a completed PRISMA checklist should be submitted for the items completed that apply to systematic reviews (the checklist items that apply to meta-analyses do not need to be completed for systematic reviews without meta-analysis). The checklist will be used during review but will not be published.

Results (1000-1250 words)

First, briefly report the results of the literature search, including the number of articles reviewed and included, numbers of various types of studies (eg, clinical trials, cohort studies) included, and the aggregate numbers of patients included in the reviewed studies. Also provide a brief summary of the quality of the evidence. Details of this information can be included in a PRISMA-style flow diagram and table(s).

Next, the subsections listed below should generally appear in the Results sections of most Reviews although all of these subsections may not be necessary for some topics, depending on the specific question or issue addressed. The word counts following each subsection are suggested to assist with keeping the overall Results section limited to 1000-1250 words.

Pathophysiology (150-250 words). Provide a brief overview of the pathophysiology of the disease. The intent is to provide readers with sufficient background information about the underpinnings of a disease to provide context for the rest of the article. Clinical Presentation (150-250 words). Briefly describe the clinical characteristics that result in a patient seeking medical care for the condition or what features of the disease should lead a clinician to evaluate or treat it. Assessment and Diagnosis (250-300 words). Describe the clinical examination for evaluation of the disease and explain the most salient physical examination findings. If laboratory or imaging studies are necessary, provide the sensitivity and specificity and diagnostic accuracy of these tests and consider providing positive and negative likelihood ratios. Sequences of diagnostic tests are best presented as algorithms or in tables. Treatment (250-500 words). Treatments should be based on the most recently available and highest level of evidence. Treatment options should be summarized in the text and presented in detail in tables along with an indication of the strength of evidence supporting the individual treatments. In general, treatment recommendations should be supported by a systematic review of the literature, either performed by the author of the Review or published in the form of a high-quality review or guideline. If possible, the costs for various treatments should be provided. Prognosis (100-150 words). A section outlining the overall prognosis for the condition, once treated, should be included. Discussion (Approximately 1000 words)

Key findings should be summarized in the first paragraph of the Discussion section. All statements made should be supported by evidence. It is very important to not simply list findings from the studies reviewed. This information is best presented in tables. The Discussion should provide a critical synthesis of data and information based on the results of the review, an assessment of the quality of studies summarized, and a description of how studies can be interpreted and used to guide clinical practice. The limitations of the evidence and of the review should be discussed, and gaps in evidence should be addressed. A discussion of controversial or unresolved issues and topics in need of future research also should be included.

Clinical Practice Guidelines: In the Discussion section, describe current clinical practice guidelines, relevant to the topic of the review, if available, and whether the conclusions of this review agree with, or disagree with, the current clinical practice guidelines. If this is done and there is more than 1 guideline, a table should be prepared comparing the major features that differ between the guidelines. Guideline quality should be discussed using the standards outlined for the JAMA Clinical Guidelines Synopsis .

Conclusions

Include a 2- to 3-sentence summary of the major conclusions of the review.

Construct tables that summarize the search results. Tables summarizing treatments should have information organized by category of treatment and then by individual treatments. Columns should include the name of the treatment, strength of evidence supporting the treatment, the treatment's effect (preferably shown as the treatment's effect as compared to control on the measured outcome together with 95% confidence intervals), adverse effects, and very brief comments, if necessary. Lengthy text-based tables should be avoided. Additional or lengthy tables may be published online only, if justified.

Ratings of the quality of the evidence. Tables summarizing evidence should include ratings of the quality of the evidence. Use the rating scheme listed below with ratings of 1-5 for Reviews that include individual studies (modified from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine for ratings of individual studies).

There are several other preferred systems for rating the quality of evidence in Review articles. For Reviews that synthesize findings from numerous studies into a single summary recommendation, use the rating scale shown above or the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine's Levels of Evidence and Grades of Recommendation or the recommendations in the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines . For reviews that include diagnostic studies, use The Rational Clinical Examination Levels of Evidence table .

Follow additional instructions for preparation and submission of Tables .

A PRISMA-style flow diagram should be included as an online supplement that summarizes the results of the literature search and the numbers of articles/records/studies and patients/participants represented in the studies identified, screened, eligible, and included in the final review.

Additional figures that illustrate pathophysiology or clinical presentation may be considered. Note: All figures will be re-created. For each proposed illustration, the authors should provide a list of the elements to be included in the illustration; 3-4 relevant recent references; example illustrations, if available; a working figure title and legend; and an explanation of how this new illustration would add to the published literature. We encourage videos, if appropriate, to illustrate a point made or process described in the Review.

Follow additional instructions for preparation and submission of Figures and Video .

Narrative Reviews on clinical topics provide an up-to-date review for clinicians on a topic of general common interest from the perspective of internationally recognized experts in these disciplines. The focus of Narrative Reviews will be an update on current understanding of the physiology of the disease or condition, diagnostic consideration, and treatment. These reviews should address a specific question or issue that is relevant for clinical practice. Narrative Reviews do not require (but may include) a systematic review of the literature search. Recommendations should be supported with evidence and should rely on recent systematic reviews and guidelines, if available, emphasizing factors such as cause, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, or prevention.

The basic structure of manuscripts reporting Narrative Reviews should include the following: Abstract (structured abstract of no more than 300 words); Introduction (150-250 words); Methods, if included (150-250 words); Discussion/Observations (1000-1250 words, with the following subsections, if appropriate: Pathophysiology, Clinical Presentation, Assessment and Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prognosis); and Conclusions (2-3 sentences).

Typical length: 2000-3500 words (maximum), with no more than a total of 5 tables and/or figures, and no more than 50-75 references. For an example of this type of article, see JAMA . 2015;314(23):2544-2554 .

Specific Components of a Narrative Review

Abstract (300 words)

Narrative Review articles should include a 3-part structured abstract of no more than 300 words using the headings listed below:

Importance: An overview of the topic and discussion of the main objective or reason for this review. Observations: The principal observations and findings of the review. Conclusions and Relevance: The conclusions of the review that are supported by the information, along with clinical applications. How the findings are clinically relevant should be specifically stated.

The first 2 to 3 sentences of the Introduction should draw in readers in such that they want to continue reading the article and should establish the importance of the Review. Reviews should include the clinical question or issue and its importance for general medical practice, specialty practice, or public health. The first paragraph should provide a general summary of the clinical problem (eg, obesity). The next paragraph should focus on the specific aspect of the clinical problem the article will explore (eg, treatments for obesity). Briefly summarize the epidemiology of the disease. This information should include disease prevalence and incidence and perhaps discussion of the presence and frequency of any relevant subpopulations and any geographic or seasonal variations of the disease if these are relevant. The third paragraph should discuss exactly what material will be covered in the Review (eg, obesity treatments).

Methods (150-250 words)

A Methods section is not required for Narrative Reviews, but may be included to summarize a literature search that was conducted for this Review. If included, briefly describe the characteristics of the literature searched and included in the review, including the bibliographic databases and other sources searched, search terms used, dates included in the search, date the literature search was conducted, and any process used to evaluate the literature.

Discussion/Observations (1000-1250 words)

The principal observations of the Narrative Review generally should include the subsections listed below, although each section may not be necessary for some topics. The word counts following each subsection are suggested to assist with keeping the overall Observations section limited to 1000-1250 words.

Pathophysiology (150-250 words). Provide a brief overview of the pathophysiology of the disease. The intent is to provide readers with sufficient background information about the underpinnings of a disease to provide context for the rest of the article. Clinical Presentation (150-250 words). Briefly describe the clinical characteristics that result in a patient seeking medical care for the condition or what features of the disease should lead a physician to evaluate or treat it. Assessment and Diagnosis (250-300 words). Describe the clinical examination for evaluation of the disease and explain the most salient physical examination findings. If laboratory or imaging studies are necessary, provide the sensitivity and specificity and diagnostic accuracy of these tests and consider providing positive and negative likelihood ratios. Sequences of diagnostic tests are best presented as algorithms or in tables. Treatment (250-500 words). Treatments should be based on the most recently available and highest level of evidence. Treatment options should be summarized in the text and presented in detail in tables along with an indication of the strength of evidence supporting the individual treatments. In general, treatment recommendations should be supported by a systematic review or a high-quality guideline. If possible, the costs for various treatments should be provided. Prognosis (100-150 words). A section outlining the overall prognosis for the condition, once treated, should be included.

For most Narrative Reviews, tables should be included that summarize the epidemiology, diagnostic tools, and therapies available for the disease. In some cases, these 3 topics may not all be relevant to the review topic and tables may be appropriately modified to fit the review. Include a fourth table that compares the findings of the review and current clinical practice recommendations or diagnostic and therapeutic uncertainty or controversies.

Table 1: Major epidemiologic and burden of disease facts Table 2: Major diagnostic tools available Table 3: Major therapies available Table 4: Current clinical practice recommendations and/or diagnostic and therapeutic uncertainty, and controversies

Tables summarizing treatments should have information organized by category of treatment and then by individual treatments. Columns may include the treatment, strength of evidence supporting the treatment, the effect of the treatment (preferably shown as the treatment's effect as compared to control on the measured outcome together with 95% confidence intervals), adverse effects, and very brief explanatory comments, if necessary. Lengthy text-based tables should be avoided. Additional or lengthy tables may be published online only, if justified.

Figures that illustrate pathophysiology or clinical presentation may be included. Note: All figures will be re-created. For each proposed illustration, the authors should provide a list of the elements to be included in the illustration; 3-4 relevant recent references; example illustrations, if available; a working figure title and legend; and an explanation of how this new illustration would add to the published literature. We encourage videos, if appropriate, to illustrate a point made or process described in the Review.

Note: This journal publishes very few of these types of articles. These manuscripts describe an important issue in clinical medicine, public health, health policy, or medical research in a scholarly, thorough, well-referenced, systematic, and evidence-based manner.

A structured abstract is required. Maximum length: 3000 words of text (not including tables, figures, or references) with no more than a total of 4 tables and/or figures and no more than 50 references. For a recently published example, see JAMA . 2019;322(20):1996-2016 .

Clinical Challenge presents an actual patient scenario about a specific disease or condition with an accompanying clinical image.

Authors should provide 4 single-phrase plausible treatment options describing possible courses of action with one of these being the most correct response for the question "What Would You Do Next?" Manuscripts should include a brief discussion of the relevant clinical issues and provide well-supported (evidence-based) explanations discussing the 4 potential courses of action. For a recently published example, see JAMA . 2022;327(24):2448-2449. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.8384 .

All diagnostic and treatment recommendations should be supported by referencing recent authoritative texts or journal articles. Preferably, these recommendations should be supported by governmental or multisociety guidelines, clinical trials, meta-analyses, or systematic reviews. The text should have a maximum length of 850 words, consisting of no more than 250 words for the case presentation, question, and 4 one-sentence answers, followed by no more than 600 words that include the diagnosis and a brief discussion. There should be no more than 3 authors. At least 1 of the authors, ideally the corresponding author, should have sufficient expertise and experience with the topic. There should be no more than 10 references, and no more than 2 small figures totaling 3 image components (Figure 1, with no more than 2 components, for the case presentation; and Figure 2, with no more than 1 component, for the diagnosis and discussion).

Provide a short title that briefly describes the disease entity or case presentation and does not include the diagnosis. Do not include the patient's race, ethnicity, or country of origin in the title or the first line of the article. If this information is clinically relevant and necessary, it can be included in the case description.

In addition, the JAMA Network Patient Permission form must be completed and signed by the patient (or a family member if the patient has died, is a minor, or is an adult without decisional capacity) and included at the time of manuscript submission. Please read Patient Identification before submitting your manuscript.

The image and case presentation should be from the same patient and must not have been published previously. In some cases, additional figures may be included to accompany the answer explanations (see description of additional figure(s) above). All images submitted should be high-quality .jpg or .tif files. Submit the original version of all image files at the highest resolution possible without labels. In general, the original image file should have a minimum resolution of 350 dpi at a width of about 5 inches. Do not increase the original resolution, resize, or crop the image; where applicable, we will crop to maintain patient confidentiality. If any labels, arrowheads, or A/B panel indicators are desired, provide a separate labeled version of the figure(s) for reference. All labels will be reformatted to journal style.

For more information on how to submit figures, see Figures.

We would like to receive common problems presenting uncommonly, rather than unusual or rare conditions (ie, "zebras"). These cases should be of interest to clinicians; they should be problems that clinicians are likely to encounter and have an outstanding image that illustrates the disorder and contributes to the diagnostic challenge.

Manuscripts not meeting these guidelines will not be considered.

Diagnostic Test Interpretation presents the results of a diagnostic test from a single patient and explores the clinical application of the test result. The Diagnostic Test Interpretation is intended to help clinicians understand the underlying rationale in ordering tests, interpreting test results, and acting on the diagnostic test findings.

The diagnostic test result must be obtained from the care of an actual patient and must include that patient's written permission. The JAMA Network Patient Permission form should be read and completed and signed by the patient (or a family member if the patient has died, is a minor, or is an adult without decisional capacity) and included at the time of manuscript submission. The results of laboratory, pathologic, or radiographic tests are appropriate but clinical images are not. Results of the diagnostic test of interest (and related tests) and the range of reference values should be included after the case. Authors of manuscripts based on clinical images should consult the instructions for Clinical Challenge .

Provide a short title that briefly describes the disease entity or case presentation and does not include the diagnosis. Do not include the patient's race, ethnicity, or country of origin in the title or first line of the article. If this information is clinically relevant and necessary, it can be included in the case description.

Manuscripts for Diagnostic Test Interpretation should have the following sections:

Case presentation. The case presentation should be brief and focus on the diagnostic test in question. At the end of the case presentation the pertinent diagnostic test results and reference ranges should be provided (200 words). Include: JAMA Exclude: Specialty Journals, JNO Comments: How do you interpret these test results? How do you interpret these test results? (or What would you do next?) Four plausible responses should be provided. While most Diagnostic Test Interpretation articles will pose the question "How do you interpret these results?" a subset may more appropriately focus on the next best step regarding workup of the abnormal test result. In these cases, the question "How do you interpret these test results?" can be replaced with "What would you do next?" Either question should be presented in the format of a multiple choice question with a single correct (or best) answer. The answers may be brief phrases or short sentences, should be similar in length, and should be arranged alphabetically by first word in the answer. Response options should not describe treatments (about 50 words). Include: CAR,ONC Exclude: JAMA, DER, IMD, NEU, OPH, PED, OTO, PSY, SUR, JNO Comments: How do you interpret these test results? Test characteristics. A brief review of the diagnostic test should be provided (approximately 200 words). For biomarkers, this should include a brief description of the related physiology. Test accuracy should be reported using sensitivity and specificity or likelihood ratios, and predictive values should be provided for common clinical scenarios. Please use likelihood ratios whenever possible, since they do not depend on disease prevalence. The prevalence of the disease should be stated so that the pretest probability may be estimated. For example, "For patients with a typical disease prevalence of 10%, the predictive values of positive and negative test results are approximately 50% and 1%, respectively." Discussion of the application and utility of the diagnostic test should be based on a high-quality systematic review or authoritative practice guideline. If a more recent, original study supersedes or adds meaningfully to the prior synthesis of research, that article also should be cited. The approximate fee for the test should be provided. For example, some fees for laboratory tests can be obtained from the Medicare fee schedules . Radiology procedure fees can be found at the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule website . Application of test result to this patient. A brief discussion of how the diagnostic test result will facilitate the next steps in a patient's management should be presented. Please also address the correct answer to the question about test interpretation in this section (200 words). What Are Alternative Diagnostic Testing Approaches? If there are different testing strategies that can be used to evaluate patients to establish a diagnosis, please discuss them (100 words). Patient Outcome. Long-term follow-up (most recent as possible) regarding the patient's condition and outcome of treatment is necessary (100 words). Clinical Bottom Line. Please provide a bulleted list of 3-5 items that reflect the most important message readers should obtain from this article.

The overall text of the manuscript should have a maximum of 850 words, no more than 10 references, and no more than 3 authors. At least 1 of the authors, ideally the corresponding author, should have sufficient expertise and experience with the topic. The case presentation must not have been previously published.

For an example of this article type, see JAMA . 2022;327(13):1284-1285. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.2037 .

If there are questions about patient identifiability, please contact the editorial office. Authors interested in submitting a manuscript for Diagnostic Test Interpretation should contact the editorial office prior to manuscript preparation and submission by sending an email to Kristin Walter at [email protected] .

Viewpoints may address virtually any important topic in medicine, public health, research, discovery, prevention, ethics, health policy, or health law and generally are not linked to a specific article. Viewpoints should be well focused, scholarly, and clearly presented but should not include the findings of new research or data that have not been previously published.

Viewpoints must have no more than 3 authors. Editors encourage diversity of gender, race, ethnicity, geographic location, and discipline for Viewpoint authors, and the first author should have sufficient expertise and experience with the topic to provide an authoritative opinion. The text should include the full name, academic degrees, and no more than 2 institutional affiliations for each author. Maximum length: up to 1200 words of text—or 1000 words of text with 1 small table or figure—and no more than 7 references, which should be as current as possible. Viewpoints not meeting these guidelines will not be considered.

Most essays published in A Piece of My Mind are personal vignettes (eg, exploring the dynamics of the patient-physician relationship) taken from wide-ranging experiences in medicine; occasional pieces express views and opinions on the myriad issues that affect the profession. If the patient(s) described in these manuscripts is identifiable, a Patient Permission form , which provides consent for publication, must be completed and signed by the patient(s) or family member(s) and submitted with the manuscript. Manuscripts that describe identifiable patients that do not have a signed form will not be reviewed. Omitting data or making data less specific to deidentify patients is acceptable, but changing any such data is not acceptable. Fictional or composite accounts are not permitted.

Manuscripts are not published anonymously or pseudonymously and must have no more than 3 authors. All manuscripts must be submitted formally via the journal's manuscript submission system; we do not review drafts or unfinished manuscripts prior to submission. Length limit: 1600 words.

Poems related to the medical experience, whether from the point of view of a health care worker or patient, or simply an observer, will be considered. Poems should be original, not previously published or under consideration elsewhere, no longer than 44 lines, and with individual lines no longer than 55 characters (including spaces). Authors should submit each poem separately (ie, one poem per submission record, and only one author per poem). Submissions containing multiple poems will be returned with instructions to split into individual files. Do not submit artwork, music/audio, or other accompanying materials, which are not considered. All poems must be submitted online via the online manuscript submission and review system . Authors of poems that are accepted for publication are required to complete Authorship Forms and transfer copyright to the publisher as part of a publishing agreement. An email with links to the Authorship Form will be sent to authors for completion before final acceptance. Author requests to republish poems are generally granted by our permissions department following a formal request.

Questions about submitting poems (but not submissions) may be sent to [email protected] .

Letters discussing a recent article in this journal should be submitted within 4 weeks of publication of the article in print. 3 Letters received after 4 weeks will rarely be considered. Letters should not exceed 400 words of text and 5 references, 1 of which should be to the recent article. Letters may have no more than 3 authors. The text should include the full name, academic degrees, and a single institutional affiliation for each author and the email address for the corresponding author. Letters must not duplicate other material published or submitted for publication and should not include unpublished data. Letters not meeting these specifications are generally not considered. Letters being considered for publication ordinarily will be sent to the authors of the original article, who will be given the opportunity to reply. Letters will be published at the discretion of the editors and are subject to abridgement and editing for style and content. To read more about Letters, see the AMA Manual of Style .

Replies by authors should not exceed 500 words of text and 6 references. They should have no more than 3 authors.

Clinical Trial

These manuscripts include reports of Randomized Clinical Trials, Parallel-Design Double-blind Trials, Crossover Trials, Equivalence and Noninferiority Trials, Cluster Trials, and Nonrandomized Clinical Trials.

The ICMJE defines a clinical trial as any research project that prospectively assigns human participants to intervention or comparison groups to study the cause-and-effect relationship between an intervention and a health outcome. 4 Interventions include but are not limited to drugs, surgical procedures, devices, behavioral treatments, educational programs, dietary interventions, quality improvement interventions, process-of-care changes, and the like. All manuscripts reporting clinical trials, including those limited to secondary exploratory or post hoc analysis of trial outcomes, must include the following:

• Copy of the original trial protocol, including the complete statistical analysis plan and any amendments. The journal recommends using the SPIRIT reporting guidelines when preparing original protocols (see Protocols ).
• CONSORT flow diagram (see Figure ).
• Completed trial checklist (see Checklist ).
• Registry at an appropriate online public clinical trial registry (see Trial Registration requirements).
• A Data Sharing Statement to indicate if data will be shared or not. Specific questions regarding the sharing of data are included in the manuscript submission system.

For additional guidance on reporting Randomized Clinical Trial, Parallel-Design Double-blind Trial, Crossover Trial, Equivalence and Noninferiority Trial, Cluster Trial, and Nonrandomized Clinical Trial, see Study Types .

Each manuscript should clearly state an objective or hypothesis; the design and methods (including the study setting and dates, patients or participants with inclusion and exclusion criteria, or data sources, and how these were selected for the study); the essential features of any interventions; the primary and secondary outcome measures (consistent with those reported in the trial protocol); the main results of the study; a discussion section placing the results in context with the published literature and addressing study limitations; and the conclusions.

A structured abstract is required, and trial registration information (registry name, trial ID, and URL) must be listed at the end of the abstract; for more information, see instructions for preparing Abstracts for Reports of Original Data . A list of 3 Key Points is required (see guidance on preparing Key Points ). Maximum length: 3000 words of text (not including abstract, tables, figures, acknowledgments, references, and supplemental material) with no more than a total of 5 tables and/or figures and no more than 50-75 references. The subtitle should include the phrase "A Randomized Clinical Trial" or, for Nonrandomized Clinical Trials, "A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial." To read more about clinical trials, see the AMA Manual of Style .

Trial Registration:

In concert with the ICMJE, JAMA Network requires, as a condition of consideration for publication, registration of all trials in a public trials registry that is acceptable to the ICMJE (ie, the registry must be owned by a not-for-profit entity, be publicly accessible, and require the minimum registration data set as described by ICMJE). 4 , 8 , 9

Acceptable trial registries include the following and others listed at http://www.icmje.org :

• anzctr.org.au
• clinicaltrials.gov
• trialregister.nl
• umin.ac.jp/ctr

All clinical trials, regardless of when they were completed, and secondary analyses of original clinical trials must be registered before submission of a manuscript based on the trial. Secondary data analyses of primary (parent) clinical trials should not be registered as separate clinical trials, but instead should reference the trial registration number of the primary trial. Please note: for clinical trials starting patient enrollment after July 2005, trials must have been registered before onset of patient enrollment. For trials that began before July 2005 but that were not registered before September 13, 2005, trials must have been registered before journal submission. Trial registry name, registration identification number, and the URL for the registry should be included at the end of the abstract and also in the space provided on the online manuscript submission form.

Authors of manuscripts reporting clinical trials must submit trial protocols (including the complete statistical analysis plan) along with their manuscripts. Protocols in non-English languages should be translated into English. This should include the original approved protocol and statistical analysis plan, and all subsequent amendments to either document. Do not submit a summary version that was published as an article in another journal. If the manuscript is accepted, the protocol and statistical analysis plan will be published as a supplement.

CONSORT Flow Diagram and Checklist:

Manuscripts reporting the results of randomized trials must include the CONSORT flow diagram showing the progress of patients throughout the trial. The CONSORT checklist also should be completed and submitted with the manuscript. 10

Figure. Profile of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Trial Protocol

These manuscripts are documents that describe the organization and plan for a randomized clinical trial, including the trial's objective(s), design, methodology, all outcomes to be measured, and statistical analysis plan. All trial protocol manuscripts must include a copy of the trial protocol including the complete statistical analysis plan (see Protocols ). All clinical trials that have begun randomization must be registered at an appropriate online public registry (see Trial Registration requirements). Follow SPIRIT Reporting Guidelines .

A structured abstract is required, and trial registration information (registry name, trial ID, and URL) must be listed at the end of the abstract; for more information, see instructions for preparing Abstracts for Trial Protocols . A list of 3 Key Points is required (see guidance on preparing Key Points ). Maximum length: 3000 words of text (not including abstract, tables, figures, acknowledgments, references, and supplemental material) with no more than a total of 5 tables and/or figures and no more than 50-75 references. The subtitle should include the phrase "A Trial Protocol."

These manuscripts are systematic, critical assessments of literature and data sources pertaining to clinical topics, emphasizing factors such as cause, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, or prevention, and that includes a statistical technique for quantitatively combining the results of multiple studies that measure the same outcome into a single pooled or summary estimate. All articles or data sources should be searched for and selected systematically for inclusion and critically evaluated, and the search and selection process should be described in the manuscript. The specific type of study or analysis, population, intervention, exposure, and tests or outcomes should be described for each article or data source. The data sources should be as current as possible, ideally with the search having been conducted within several months of manuscript submission. Authors of reports of meta-analyses of clinical trials should submit the PRISMA flow diagram and checklist . Authors of meta-analyses of observational studies should submit the MOOSE checklist . Follow EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines .

A structured abstract is required; for more information, see instructions for preparing Abstracts for Meta-analysis . A list of 3 Key Points is required (see guidance on preparing Key Points ). Maximum length: 3000 words of text (not including abstract, tables, figures, acknowledgments, references, and online-only material), with no more than a total of 5 tables and/or figures and no more than 50-75 references. The subtitle should include the phrase "A Meta-analysis." To read more about meta-analyses, see the AMA Manual of Style .

Other Observational Studies

These manuscripts include Cohort Study, Case-Control Study, Cross-sectional Study, Case Series, Economic Evaluation, Decision Analytical Model, Comparative Effectiveness Research, Genetic Association Study, Diagnostic/Prognostic Study, Quality Improvement Study, Survey Study, and Qualitative Study. Each manuscript should clearly state an objective or hypothesis; the design and methods (including the study setting and dates, patients or participants with inclusion and exclusion criteria and/or participation or response rates, or data sources, and how these were selected for the study); the essential features of any interventions or exposures; the main outcome measures; the main results of the study; a discussion section placing the results in context with the published literature and addressing study limitations; and the conclusions and relevant implications for clinical practice or health policy. Data included in research reports must be original and should be as timely and current as possible (see Timeliness of Data ). Follow EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines .

A structured abstract is required; for more information, see instructions for preparing Abstracts for Reports of Original Data . A list of 3 Key Points is required (see guidance on preparing Key Points ). Maximum length: 3000 words of text (not including abstract, tables, figures, acknowledgments, references, and supplemental material) with no more than a total of 5 tables and/or figures and no more than 50-75 references.

Format My Manuscript

Manuscript preparation and submission requirements.

All manuscripts must be submitted online via the online manuscript submission and review system .

At the time of submission, complete contact information (affiliation, postal/mail address, email address, and telephone numbers) for the corresponding author is required. First and last names, email addresses, and institutional affiliations of all coauthors are also required. After the manuscript is submitted, the corresponding author will receive an acknowledgment confirming receipt and a manuscript number. Authors will be able to track the status of their manuscripts via the online system. After manuscript submission, all authors of papers under consideration for publication will be sent a link to the Authorship Form to complete and submit. See other details in these instructions for additional requirements. 2 , 4

As recommended by the ICMJE, "if the manuscript has been submitted previously to another journal, it is helpful to include the previous editors' and reviewers' comments with the submitted manuscript, along with the authors' responses to those comments." 4 It is not uncommon for manuscripts to have been submitted to and peer reviewed by other journals and sharing this information will not bias an editor's decision for this journal. Thus, authors are encouraged to submit these previous comments in their entirety and indicate how they have revised the manuscript in response to these comments, which may expedite the review process. In the submission system, there is a file type for Previous Peer Review and Editorial Comments.

Include a cover letter and complete contact information for the corresponding author (affiliation, postal/mail address, email address, and telephone number) and whether the authors have published, posted, or submitted any related papers from the same study (see Previous Publication, Related Manuscripts and Reports, and Preprints ).

Manuscripts should be prepared in accordance with the AMA Manual of Style , 11th edition, 2 and/or the ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals . 4

Include in the manuscript file a title page, abstract, text, references, and as appropriate, figure legends and tables. Start each of these sections on a new page, numbered consecutively, beginning with the title page. Figures should be submitted as separate files (1 file per figure) and not included in the manuscript text.

We recommend individual file sizes of no more than 500 kB and not exceeding 1 MB, with the total size for all files not exceeding 5 MB (not including any video files).

For submission and review, please submit the manuscript as a Word document. Do not submit your manuscript in PDF format.

Use 10-, 11-, or 12-point font size, double-space text, and leave right margins unjustified (ragged).

The title page should be the first page of your manuscript file. It should include a manuscript title; the full names, highest academic degrees, and affiliations of all authors (if an author's affiliation has changed since the work was done, the new affiliation also should be listed); name and complete contact information for corresponding author; and manuscript word count (not including title, abstract, acknowledgment, references, tables, and figure legends).

Titles should be concise, specific, and informative. 2(p8) Please limit the length of titles to 100 characters (including spaces) for reports of research and other major articles and 60 characters for shorter article types such as opinion articles and Letters as well as for subtitles to major articles. For scientific manuscripts, do not use overly general titles, declarative titles, titles that include the direction of study results, or questions as titles. For reports of clinical trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews, include the type of study as a subtitle (eg, A Randomized Clinical Trial, A Meta-analysis, A Systematic Review). For reports of other types of research, do not include study type or design in the title or subtitle. Depending on the context, avoid inclusion of specific locations (eg, state, province, or country) and specific years. To read more about titles, see the AMA Manual of Style .

In the manuscript, include a separate section called "Key Points" before the Abstract.

This feature provides a quick structured synopsis of the findings of your manuscript (required only for research and review manuscripts), following 3 key points: Question, Findings, and Meaning. Limit this section to 75-100 words or less.

Question: Focused question based on the study hypothesis or goal/purpose. Limit to 1 sentence. Findings: Results of the study/review. Include the design (eg, clinical trial, cohort study, case-control study, meta-analysis). Focus on primary outcome(s) and finding(s). Do not emphasize secondary outcomes. Report basic numbers only but state if results are statistically significant or not significant; do not include results of statistical tests or measures of variance (see example below). Can include 1 to 2 sentences. Meaning: Key conclusion and implication based on the primary finding(s). Limit to 1 sentence. Example of Research Article Question: What is the immunogenicity of an inactivated influenza A vaccine with and without adjuvant? Findings: In this randomized clinical trial that included 980 adults, the proportion achieving an effective antibody response was 84% with adjuvant vs 2% without adjuvant, a significant difference. Meaning: In an influenza pandemic the use of an adjuvant with inactivated influenza A vaccine may be warranted. Include: All Journals except JNO and JHF Exclude: JNO and JHF Comments: Example of Review Article Example of Review Article Question: What are the most effective medical treatments for adult chronic sinusitis? Findings: In this systematic review, symptoms of chronic sinusitis were improved with saline irrigation and topical corticosteroid therapy compared to no therapy. Compared with placebo, 3-week courses of systemic corticosteroids or oral doxycycline were associated with reduced polyp size, and a 3-month course of macrolide antibiotic was associated with improved symptoms in patients without polyps. Meaning: First-line therapy for chronic sinusitis should begin with daily topical intranasal corticosteroid in conjunction with saline irrigation; subsequent therapies should be based on the patient's polyp status and severity of symptoms.

Include a structured abstract for reports of original data, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews. Abstracts should be prepared in JAMA Network style—see instructions for preparing abstracts below. Abstracts are not required for Editorials, Viewpoints, and special features. No information should be reported in the abstract that does not appear in the text of the manuscript. To read more about abstracts, see the AMA Manual of Style .

Abstracts for Reports of Original Data:

Reports of original data should include an abstract of no more than 350 words using the headings listed below. For brevity, parts of the abstract may be written as phrases rather than complete sentences. Each section should include the following content:

Importance: The abstract should begin with a sentence or 2 explaining the clinical (or other) importance of the study question. Objective: State the precise objective or study question addressed in the report (eg, "To determine whether..."). If more than 1 objective is addressed, the main objective should be indicated and only key secondary objectives stated. If an a priori hypothesis was tested, it should be stated. Design: Describe the basic design of the study and include the specific study type (eg, randomized clinical trial, cohort, cross-sectional, case-control, case series, survey, meta-analysis, bibliometric analysis). State the years of the study and the duration of follow-up. For older studies (eg, those completed >3 years ago), add the date of the analysis being reported. If applicable, include the name of the study (eg, the Framingham Heart Study). As relevant, indicate whether observers were blinded to patient groupings, particularly for subjective measurements. Setting: Describe the study setting to assist readers to determine the applicability of the report to other circumstances, for example, multicenter, population-based, primary care or referral center(s), etc. Participants: State the clinical disorders, important eligibility criteria, and key sociodemographic features of patients (or other study participants). The numbers of eligible participants and how they were selected should be provided, including the number approached but who refused or were excluded. For selection procedures, these terms should be used, if appropriate: random sample (where random refers to a formal, randomized selection in which all eligible individuals have a fixed and usually equal chance of selection); population-based sample; referred sample; consecutive sample; volunteer sample; convenience sample. If matching is used for comparison groups, characteristics that are matched should be specified. In follow-up studies, the proportion of participants who completed the study must be indicated.

Note: The preceding 3 sections are usually combined for accepted papers during the editing process as "Design, Setting, and Participants," but for manuscript submission these sections should be kept separate.

Intervention(s) (for clinical trials) or Exposure(s) (for observational studies): The essential features of any interventions, or exposures, should be described, including their method and duration. The intervention, or exposure, should be named by its most common clinical name, and nonproprietary drug names should be used. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): Indicate the primary study outcome measurement(s) as planned before data collection began. If the manuscript does not report the main planned outcomes of a study, this fact should be stated and the reason indicated. State clearly if the hypothesis being tested was formulated during or after data collection. Explain outcomes or measurements unfamiliar to a general medical readership. Results: Summary demographic information (eg, characteristics such as sex and age) and the number of study participants should be reported in the first sentence of the Results paragraph. The main outcomes of the study should be reported and quantified, including final included/analyzed sample. When possible, present numerical results (eg, absolute numbers and/or rates) with appropriate indicators of uncertainty, such as confidence intervals. Include absolute numbers and/or rates with any ratio measures and avoid redundant reporting of relative data (eg, % increase or decrease). Use means and standard deviations (SDs) for normally distributed data and medians and ranges or interquartile ranges (IQRs) for data that are not normally distributed. Avoid solely reporting the results of statistical hypothesis testing, such as  P  values, which fail to convey important quantitative information. For most studies,  P  values should follow the reporting of comparisons of absolute numbers or rates and measures of uncertainty (eg, 0.8%, 95% CI −0.2% to 1.8%;  P  =.13).  P  values should never be presented alone without the data that are being compared. See also Reporting Standards and Data Presentation . Measures of relative risk also may be reported (eg, relative risk, hazard ratios) and should include confidence intervals. Studies of screening and diagnostic tests should report sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratio. If predictive value or accuracy is reported, prevalence or pretest likelihood should be given as well. All randomized clinical trials should include the results of intention-to-treat analysis as well. In intervention studies, the number of patients withdrawn because of adverse effects should be given. Approaches such as number needed to treat to achieve a unit of benefit may be included when appropriate. All surveys should include response/participation rates. Conclusions and Relevance: Provide only conclusions of the study that are directly supported by the results. Give equal emphasis to positive and negative findings of equal scientific merit. Also, provide a statement of relevance indicating implications for clinical practice or health policy, avoiding speculation and overgeneralization. The relevance statement may also indicate whether additional study is required before the information should be used in clinical settings. Trial Registration: For clinical trials only (not nontrial observational studies), the name of the trial registry, registration number, and URL of the registry must be included. See Trial Registration .

Abstracts for Meta-analysis:

Manuscripts reporting the results of meta-analyses should include an abstract of no more than 350 words using the headings listed below. The text of the manuscript should also include a section describing the methods used for data sources, study selection, data extraction, and data synthesis. Each heading should be followed by a brief description:

Importance: A sentence or 2 explaining the importance of the systematic review question that is used to justify the meta-analysis. Objective: State the precise primary objective of the meta-analysis. Indicate whether the systematic review for the meta-analysis emphasizes factors such as cause, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, or prevention and include information about the specific population, intervention, exposure, and tests or outcomes that are being analyzed. Data Sources: Succinctly summarize data sources, including years searched. The search should include the most current information possible, ideally with the search being conducted within several months before the date of manuscript submission. Potential sources include computerized databases and published indexes, registries, meeting abstracts, conference proceedings, references identified from bibliographies of pertinent articles and books, experts or research institutions active in the field, and companies or manufacturers of tests or agents being reviewed. If a bibliographic database is used, state the exact indexing terms used for article retrieval, including any constraints (for example, English language or human study participants). If abstract space does not permit this level of detail, summarize sources in the abstract including databases and years searched, and place the remainder of the information in the Methods section. Study Selection: Describe inclusion and exclusion criteria used to select studies for detailed review from among studies identified as relevant to the topic. Details of selection should include particular populations, interventions, outcomes, or methodological designs. The method used to apply these criteria should be specified (for example, blinded review, consensus, multiple reviewers). State the proportion of initially identified studies that met selection criteria. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Describe guidelines (eg, PRISMA , MOOSE ) used for abstracting data and assessing data quality and validity. The method by which the guidelines were applied should be stated (for example, independent extraction by multiple observers). Indicate whether data were pooled using a fixed-effect or random-effects model. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): Indicate the primary study outcome(s) and measurement(s) as planned before data collection began. If the manuscript does not report the main planned outcomes of a study, this fact should be stated and the reason indicated. State clearly if the hypothesis being tested was formulated during or after data collection. Explain outcomes or measurement unfamiliar to a general medical readership. Results: Provide the number of studies and patients/participants in the analysis and state the main quantitative results of the review. When possible, present numerical results (eg, absolute numbers and/or rates) with appropriate indicators of uncertainty, such as confidence intervals. Include absolute numbers and/or rates with any ratio measures and avoid redundant reporting of relative data (eg, % increase or decrease). Use means and standard deviations (SDs) for normally distributed data and medians and ranges or interquartile ranges (IQRs) for data that are not normally distributed. Avoid solely reporting the results of statistical hypothesis testing, such as  P  values, which fail to convey important quantitative information. For most studies,  P  values should follow the reporting of comparisons of absolute numbers or rates and measures of uncertainty (eg, 0.8%, 95% CI −0.2% to 1.8%;  P  = .13).  P  values should never be presented alone without the data that are being compared. See also Reporting Standards and Data Presentation . Meta-analyses should state the major outcomes that were pooled and include odds ratios or effect sizes and, if possible, sensitivity analyses. Evaluations of screening and diagnostic tests should include sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, receiver operating characteristic curves, and predictive values. Assessments of prognosis should summarize survival characteristics and related variables. Major identified sources of variation between studies should be stated, including differences in treatment protocols, co-interventions, confounders, outcome measures, length of follow-up, and dropout rates. Conclusions and Relevance: The conclusions and their applications (clinical or otherwise) should be clearly stated, limiting interpretation to the domain of the review.

Abstracts for Systematic Reviews or Special Communications:

Systematic Review articles should include a structured abstract of no more than 350 words using the headings listed below.

Importance:  Include 1 or 2 sentences describing the clinical question or issue and its importance in clinical practice or public health. Objective:  State the precise primary objective of the review. Indicate whether the review emphasizes factors such as cause, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, or prevention and include information about the specific population, intervention, exposure, and tests or outcomes that are being reviewed. Evidence Review:  Describe the information sources used, including the search strategies, years searched, and other sources of material, such as subsequent reference searches of retrieved articles. Methods used for inclusion of identified articles and quality assessment should be explained. Findings:  Include a brief summary of the number of articles included, numbers of various types of studies (eg, clinical trials, cohort studies), and numbers of patients/participants represented by these studies. Summarize the major findings of the review of the clinical issue or topic in an evidence-based, objective, and balanced fashion, with the highest-quality evidence available receiving the greatest emphasis. Provide quantitative data. Conclusions and Relevance:  The conclusions should clearly answer the questions posed if applicable, be based on available evidence, and emphasize how clinicians should apply current knowledge. Conclusions should be based only on results described in the abstract Findings subsection.

Abstracts for Narrative Reviews or Special Communications:

Importance:  An overview of the topic and discussion of the main objective or reason for this review. Observations:  The principal observations and findings of the review. Conclusions and Relevance:  The conclusions of the review that are supported by the information, along with clinical applications. How the findings are clinically relevant should be specifically stated.

Ratings of the quality of the evidence

Tables summarizing evidence should include ratings of the quality of the evidence. Use the rating scheme listed below with ratings of 1-5 for Reviews that include individual studies (modified from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine for ratings of individual studies).

Do not use abbreviations in the title or abstract and limit their use in the text. Expand all abbreviations at first mention in the text. To read more about abbreviation use, see the AMA Manual of Style .

Laboratory values are expressed using conventional units of measure, with relevant Système International (SI) conversion factors expressed secondarily (in parentheses) only at first mention. Articles that contain numerous conversion factors may list them together in a paragraph at the end of the Methods section. In tables and figures, a conversion factor to SI should be presented in the footnote or legend. The metric system is preferred for the expression of length, area, mass, and volume. For more details, see the Units of Measure conversion table on the website for the AMA Manual of Style . 2

To read more about units of measure, click here .

Use nonproprietary names of drugs, devices, and other products and services, unless the specific trade name of a drug is essential to the discussion. 2(pp567-569) In such cases, use the trade name once and the generic or descriptive name thereafter. Do not include trademark symbols. To read more about names of drugs, see the AMA Manual of Style .

Authors describing genes or related structures in a manuscript should include the names and official symbols provided by the US National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) or the HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee . Before submission of a research manuscript reporting on large genomic data sets (eg, protein or DNA sequences), the data sets should be deposited in a publicly available database, such as NCBI's GenBank , and a complete accession number (and version number if appropriate) must be provided in the Methods section or Acknowledgment of the manuscript. To read more about gene nomenclature, see the AMA Manual of Style .

JAMA does not republish text, tables, figures, or other material from other publishers, except under rare circumstances. Please delete any such material and replace with originals.

The submission and publication of content created by artificial intelligence, language models, machine learning, or similar technologies is discouraged, unless part of formal research design or methods, and is not permitted without clear description of the content that was created and the name of the model or tool, version and extension numbers, and manufacturer. Authors must take responsibility for the integrity of the content generated by these models and tools. See also Use of AI in Publication and Research .

Authors are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of their references and for correct text citation. Number references in the order they appear in the text; do not alphabetize. In text, tables, and legends, identify references with superscript arabic numerals. When listing references, follow AMA style and abbreviate names of journals according to the journals list in PubMed . List all authors and/or editors up to 6; if more than 6, list the first 3 followed by "et al." Note: Journal references should include the issue number in parentheses after the volume number.

Examples of reference style:

Youngster I, Russell GH, Pindar C, Ziv-Baran T, Sauk J, Hohmann EL. Oral, capsulized, frozen fecal microbiota transplantation for relapsing Clostridium difficileinfection. JAMA . 2014;312(17):1772-1778. Murray CJL. Maximizing antiretroviral therapy in developing countries: the dual challenge of efficiency and quality [published online December 1, 2014]. JAMA . doi:10.1001/jama.2014.16376 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. CMS proposals to implement certain disclosure provisions of the Affordable Care Act. http://www.cms.gov/apps/media/press/factsheet.asp?Counter=4221 . Accessed January 30, 2012. McPhee SJ, Winker MA, Rabow MW, Pantilat SZ, Markowitz AJ, eds. Care at the Close of Life: Evidence and Experience . New York, NY: McGraw Hill Medical; 2011.

For more examples of electronic references, click here .

Tables and Figures

Restrict tables and figures to those needed to explain and support the argument of the article and to report all outcomes identified in the Methods section. Number each table and figure and provide a descriptive title for each. Every table and figure should have an in-text citation. Verify that data are consistently reported across text, tables, figures, and supplementary material.

See also Tables and Figures .

Frequency data should be reported as "No. (%)," not as percentages alone (exception, sample sizes exceeding ~10,000). Whenever possible, proportions and percentages should be accompanied by the actual numerator and denominator from which they were derived. This is particularly important when the sample size is less than 100. Do not use decimal places (ie, xx%, not xx.xx%) if the sample size is less than 100. Tables that include results from multivariable regression models should focus on the primary results. Provide the unadjusted and adjusted results for the primary exposure(s) or comparison(s) of interest. If a more detailed description of the model is required, consider providing the additional unadjusted and adjusted results in supplementary tables.

Tables have a minimum of 2 columns. Comparisons must read across the table columns.

Do not duplicate data in figures and tables. For all primary outcomes noted in the Methods section, exact values with measures of uncertainty should be reported in the text or in a table and in the Abstract, and not only represented graphically in figures.

Pie charts and 3-D graphs should not be used and should be revised to alternative graph types.

Bar graphs should be used to present frequency data only (ie, numbers and rates). Avoid stacked bar charts and consider alternative formats (eg, tables or splitting bar segments into side-by-side bars) except for comparisons of distributions of ordinal data.

Summary data (eg, means, odds ratios) should be reported using data markers for point estimates, not bars, and should include error bars indicating measures of uncertainty (eg, SDs, 95% CIs). Actual values (not log-transformed values) of relative data (for example, odds ratios, hazard ratios) should be plotted on log scales.

For survival plots, include the number at risk for each group included in the analysis at intervals along the x-axis scale. For any figures in which color is used, be sure that colors are distinguishable.

All symbols, indicators, line styles, and colors in statistical graphs should be defined in a key or in the figure legend. Axes in statistical graphs must have labels. Units of measure must be provided for continuous data.

Note: All figures are re-created by journal graphics experts according to reporting standards using the JAMA Network style guide and color palette.

• Number all tables in the order of their citation in the text.
• Include a brief title for each table (a descriptive phrase, preferably no longer than 10 to 15 words).
• Include all tables at the end of the manuscript file.
• Refer to Categories of Articles for limits on the number of tables.
• NOTE: Do not embed tables as images in the manuscript file or upload tables in image formats, and do not upload tables as separate files.

Table Creation

Use the table menu in the software program used to prepare the text. Tables can be built de novo using Insert→Table or copied into the text file from another document (eg, Word, Excel, or a statistical spreadsheet).

Avoid using tabs, spaces, and hard returns to set up the table; such tables will have to be retyped, creating delays and opportunities for error.

Tables should be single-spaced and in a 10- or 12-point font (do not shrink the point size to fit the table onto the page). Do not draw extra lines or rules—the table grid will display the outlines of each cell.

Missing data and blank space in the table field (ie, an empty cell) may create ambiguity and should be avoided; use abbreviations such as NA for not applicable or not available. Each piece of data needs to be contained in its own cell. Do not try to align cells with hard returns or tabs; alignment will be imposed in the production system if the manuscript is accepted. To show an indent, add 2 spaces.

When presenting percentages, include numbers (numerator and denominator).

Include statistical variability where applicable (eg, mean [SD], median [IQR]). For additional detail on requirements for data presentation in tables, see Statistical Methods and Data Presentation .

Place each row of data in a separate row of cells, and note that No. (%) and measures of variability are presented in the same cell as in the example Table 1 below:

Table 1. Baseline Values in the Editors' Health Study

SI conversion factors: To convert cholesterol to mmol/L, multiply values by 0.0259.

Note that JAMA Network journals report laboratory values in conventional units. In a table, provide a footnote with the conversion factor to SI units. For a calculator of SI and conventional units, see the AMA Manual of Style . 2

To present data that span more than 1 row, merge the cells vertically. For example, in Table 2 the final column presents the P value for overall age comparisons.

Table 2. Blood Pressure Values Stratified by Age

The table should be constructed such that the primary comparison reads horizontally. For example, see Table 3 (incorrect) and Table 4 (correct).

Table 3. Patient Data by Study Group

Table 4. Patient Data by Study Group

If a table must be continued, repeat the title and column headings on the second page, followed by "(continued)."

Table Footnotes

Footnotes to tables may apply to the entire table, portions (eg, a column), or an individual entry.

The order of the footnotes is determined by the placement in the table of the item to which the footnote refers.

When both a footnote letter and reference number follow data in a table, set the superscript reference number first followed by a comma and the superscript letter.

Use superscript letters (a, b, c) to mark each footnote and be sure each footnote in the table has a corresponding note (and vice versa).

List abbreviations in the footnote section and explain any empty cells.

If relevant, add a footnote to explain why numbers may not sum to group totals or percentages do not add to 100%.

For more detail on the components and recommended structure of tables, see the AMA Manual of Style . 2

Number all figures (graphs, charts, photographs, and illustrations) in the order of their citation in the text. The number of figures should be limited. Avoid complex composite or multipart figures unless justified. See Categories of Articles for limits on the number of figures and/or tables according to article type.

For initial manuscript submissions, figures must be of sufficient quality and may be embedded at the end of the file for editorial assessment and peer review. If a revision is requested and before a manuscript is accepted, authors will be asked to provide figures that meet the requirements described in Figure File Requirements for Publication .

Graphs, charts, some illustrations, titles, legends, keys, and other elements related to figures in accepted manuscripts will be re-created and edited according to JAMA Network style and standards prior to publication. Online-only figures will not be edited or re-created (see Online-Only Supplements and Multimedia ).

Image Integrity

Preparation of scientific images (clinical images, radiographic images, micrographs, gels, etc) for publication must preserve the integrity of the image data. Digital adjustments of brightness, contrast, or color applied uniformly to an entire image are permissible as long as these adjustments do not selectively highlight, misrepresent, obscure, or eliminate specific elements in the original figure, including the background. Selective adjustments applied to individual elements in an image are not permissible. Individual elements may not be moved within an image field, deleted, or inserted from another image. Cropping may be used for efficient image display or to deidentify patients but must not misrepresent or alter interpretation of the image by selectively eliminating relevant visual information. Juxtaposition of elements from different parts of a single image or from different images, as in a composite, must be clearly indicated by the addition of dividing lines, borders, and/or panel labels.

The submission and publication of images created by artificial intelligence, machine learning tools, or similar technologies is discouraged, unless part of formal research design or methods, and is not permitted without clear description of the content that was created and the name of the model or tool, version and extension numbers, and manufacturer. Authors must take responsibility for the integrity of the content generated by these models and tools. See also Use of AI in Publication and Research .

When inappropriate images or image adjustments are detected by the journal staff, authors will be asked for an explanation and will be requested to submit the image as originally captured prior to any adjustment, cropping, or labeling. Authors may be asked to resubmit the image prepared in accordance with the above standards.

Acceptable Figure Files for Initial Submission and Review

Each figure for the main article may be uploaded as a separate file or appended to the end of the manuscript with the figure titles and legends. Online-only figures must be combined into the PDF of the online-only supplement (see Online-Only Supplements and Multimedia ). Note: If a revision is requested and before acceptance, authors must upload each figure for the main article as a separate file and follow the instructions in Figure File Requirements for Publication .

See the Table of Figure Requirements for additional guidance for specific types of figures for suggested resolution and file formats. In general each figure should be no larger than 1 MB.

Figure File Requirements for Publication

Each figure for the main article must be uploaded as a separate file. Online-only figures must be combined into the PDF of the online-only supplement (see Online-Only Supplements and Multimedia ).

See the Table of Figure Requirements for additional guidance and file formats for specific types of figures.

Files created by vector programs are best for accurately plotting and maintaining data points. JAMA Network journals are unable to use file formats native to statistical software applications to prepare figures for publication; most statistical software programs allow users to save or export files in digital vector formats.

Images created digitally (by digital camera or electronically created illustrations) must meet the minimum resolution requirements at the time of creation. Electronically increasing the resolution of an image after creation causes a breakdown of detail and will result in an unacceptable poor-quality image. Each component of a composite image must be uploaded separately at submission and individually meet the minimum resolution requirement.

Color photographs should be submitted in RGB mode using profiles such as Adobe RGB or sRGB. Digital cameras capture images in RGB. Do not change any color settings once the file is on the computer. Black-and-white photographs (eg, radiographs, ultrasound images, CT and MRI scans, and electron micrographs) can be submitted in either RGB or grayscale modes.

Figure Titles and Legends (Captions)

At the end of the manuscript, include a title for each figure. The figure title should be a brief descriptive phrase, preferably no longer than 10 to 15 words. A figure legend (caption) can be used for a brief explanation of the figure or markers if needed and expansion of abbreviations. For photomicrographs, include the type of specimen, original magnification or a scale bar, and stain in the legend. For gross pathology specimens, label any rulers with unit of measure. Digitally enhanced images must be clearly identified in the figure legends as enhanced or manipulated, eg, computed tomographic scans, magnetic resonance images, photographs, photomicrographs, x-ray films.

Figures With Labels, Arrows, or Other Markers

Photographs, clinical images, photomicrographs, gel electrophoresis, and other types that include labels, arrows, or other markers must be submitted in 2 versions: one version with the markers and one without. Provide an explanation for all labels, arrows, or other markers in the figure legend. The Figure field in the File Description tab of the manuscript submission system allows for uploading of 2 versions of the same figure.

Number of Figures

Refer to Categories of Articles because there may be a limit on the number of figures by article type.

General Figure Guidelines

• Primary outcome data should not be presented in figures alone. Exact values with measure of variability should be reported in the text or table as well as in the abstract.
• All symbols, indicators (including error bars), line styles, colors, and abbreviations should be defined in a legend.
• Each axis on a statistical graph must have a label and units of measure should be labeled.
• Do not use pie charts, 3-D graphs, and stacked bar charts as these are not appropriate for accurate statistical presentation of data and should be revised to another figure type or converted to a table.
• Error bars should be included in both directions, unless only 1-sided variability was calculated.
• Values for ratio data—odds ratios, relative risks, hazard ratios—should be plotted on a log scale. Values for ratio data should not be log transformed.
• For footnotes, use letters (a, b, c, etc) not symbols.
• Do not submit figures with more than 4 panels unless otherwise justified.
• See the AMA Manual of Style for more guidance on figure types and components.

For images featuring patients or other identifiable persons, it is not acceptable to use black bars across the eyes in an attempt to deidentify. Cropping may be acceptable as long as the condition under discussion is clearly visible and necessary anatomic landmarks display. If the person in the image is possibly identifiable (not only by others but also by her/himself), permission for publication is required (see Patient Identification ).

Table of Figure Requirements

To present frequency data (numbers or percentages). Each bar represents a category.

Bar graphs are typically vertical but when categories have long titles or there are many of them, they may run horizontally.

The scale on the frequency axis should begin at 0, and the axis should not be broken.

If the data plotted are a percentage or rate, error bars may be used to show statistical variability.

Acceptable File Formats for Initial Submission: .ai, .bmp, .docx, .emf, .eps, .jpg, .pdf, .ppt, .psd, .tif, .wmf, .xls

Acceptable File Formats for Revision and Publication: .ai, .emf, .eps, .pdf, .wmf, .xls

To demonstrate the relationship between 2 or more quantitative variables, such as changes over time.

The dependent variable appears on the vertical axis (y) and the independent variable on the horizontal axis (x); the axes should be continuous, not broken.

Flow diagram

To show participant recruitment and follow-up or inclusions and exclusions (such as in a systematic review).

Acceptable File Formats for Initial Submission: .ai, .docx, .emf, .eps, .jpg, .pdf, .ppt

Acceptable File Formats for Revision and Publication: .ai, .docx, .emf, .eps, .pdf

Survival plot

To display the proportion or percentage of individuals (represented on the y-axis) remaining free of or experiencing a specific outcome over time (represented on the x-axis).

The curve should be drawn as a step function (not smoothed).

The number of individuals followed up for each time interval (number at risk) should be shown underneath the x-axis.

Box-and-whisker plot (box plot)

To show data distribution from 1 or more groups, particularly aggregate/summary data.

Each element should be described (the ends of the boxes, the middle line, and the whiskers). Data points that fall beyond the whiskers are typically shown as circles.

Forest plot

To illustrate summary data, particularly in meta-analyses and systematic reviews.

The data are presented both tabularly and graphically.

The sources (with years and citations, when relevant) should comprise the first column.

Provide indicators of both directions of results at the top of the plot on either side of the vertical line (eg, favors intervention).

Typically, proportionally sized boxes represent the weight of each study and a diamond shows the overall effect at the bottom of the plot.

To display quantitative data other than counts or frequencies on a single scaled axis according to categories on a baseline (horizontal or vertical). Point estimates are represented by discrete data markers, preferably with error bars (in both directions) to designate variability.

Scatterplot

To show individual data points plotted according to coordinate values with continuous, quantitative x- and y-axis scales.

A curve that is generated mathematically may be fitted to the data to summarize the relationship among the variables.

Illustration

To explain physiological mechanisms, describe clinical maneuvers and surgical techniques, or provide orientation to medical imaging.

Required minimum resolution for publication: ≥350 ppi

Acceptable File Formats for Initial Submission: .ai, .docx, .eps, .jpg, .pdf, .ppt, .psd., tif

Acceptable File Formats for Revision and Publication: .ai, .eps, .jpg, .pdf, .psd, .tif

Photographs and other clinical images

To display clinical findings, experimental results, or clinical procedures, including medical imaging, photomicrographs, clinical photographs, and photographs of biopsy specimens.

Legends for photomicrographs should include details about the type of stain used and magnification.

Acceptable File Formats for Initial Submission: .eps, .jpg, .pdf, .ppt, .psd, .tif

Acceptable File Formats for Revision and Publication: .eps, .jpg, .psd, .tif

Line drawings

To illustrate anatomy or procedures.

Line drawings are almost always black and white.

Required minimum resolution for publication: ≥600 ppi

Acceptable File Formats for Initial Submission: .docx, .jpg, .pdf, .ppt, .psd, .tif

Acceptable File Formats for Revision and Publication: .jpg, .psd, .tif

Authors may submit supporting material to accompany their article for online-only publication when there is insufficient space to include the material in the print article. This material should be important to the understanding and interpretation of the report and should not repeat material in the print article. The amount of online-only material should be limited and justified. Online-only material should be original and not previously published.

Online-only material will undergo editorial and peer review with the main manuscript. If the manuscript is accepted for publication and if the online-only material is deemed appropriate for publication by the editors, it will be posted online at the time of publication of the article as additional material provided by the authors. This material will not be edited or formatted; thus, authors are responsible for the accuracy and presentation of all such material.

Online-only material should be submitted in a single Word document with pages numbered consecutively. Each element included in the online-only material should be cited in the text of the main manuscript (eg, eTable in the Supplement) and numbered in order of citation in the text (eg, eTable 1, eTable 2, eFigure 1, eFigure 2, eMethods). The first page of the online-only document should list the number and title of each element included in the document.

Online-Only Text

Online-only text should be set in Times New Roman font, 10 point in size, and single-spaced. The main heading of the online-only text should be in 12 point and boldface; subheadings should be in 10 point and boldface.

Online-Only References

All references cited within the online-only document must be included in a separate reference section, including those that also were cited in the main manuscript. They should be formatted just as in the main manuscript and numbered and cited consecutively in the online-only material.

Online-Only Tables

Online-only tables should be inserted in the document and numbered consecutively according to the order of citation as eTable 1, eTable 2, etc. All online-only tables should be cited in the relevant text of the main manuscript. The text and data in online tables should be Arial font, 10 point in size, and single-spaced. The table title should be set in Arial font, 12 point, and bold. Headings within tables should be set in 10 point and bold. Table footnotes should be set in 8 point and single-spaced. See also instructions for Tables above. If a table runs on to subsequent pages, repeat the column headers at the top of each page. Wide tables may be presented using a landscape orientation.

If data are better displayed in a separate Excel file, this can be submitted, provided that the Excel file is cited as an eTable and is numbered in the order cited in the text. If multiple Excel files of data are submitted, these should be placed in a single Excel file, with multiple tabs (sheets) at the bottom of the file. The first tab (sheet) should include a table of contents with eTable numbers and titles, and the subsequent tabs (sheets) should be labeled as eTable 1, eTable 2, etc. Please note: the journal is not a data repository; large data sets should be deposited into publicly accessible data repositories, and a link should be provided in the Methods or Results section and the Data Sharing Statement .

Online-Only Figures

Online-only figures should be inserted in the document and numbered consecutively according to the order of citation as eFigure 1, eFigure 2, etc. All online-only figures should be cited in the relevant text of the main manuscript. Figure titles should be set in Arial font, 12 point, bold, and single-spaced. Text within figures should be set as Arial font, 10 point. Figure legends should be set in 8 point and single-spaced. Graphs and diagrams should be exported directly out of the software application used to create them in a vector file format, such as .wmf, and then inserted into the Word document. Image file formats such as .jpg, .tif, and .gif are generally not suitable for graphs. Photographs, including all radiological images, should be prepared as .jpg (highest option) or .tif (uncompressed) files at a resolution of 300 dpi and width of 3-5 inches, but the resolution of photographic files with an original resolution <300 dpi should not be increased digitally to achieve a 300-dpi resolution. Photographs should be inserted in the document with the "Link to File" button turned off. Wide figures may be presented using a landscape orientation.

For editorial and review of an initial submission, submit videos according to the following specifications:

• Acceptable file formats: .mov, .wmv, .mpg, .mpeg, .mp4, or .avi
• Maximum file size: ≤25 MB
• Preferred dimensions: 1920x1080 (HD) or greater (4k UHD footage is acceptable)
• Minimum dimensions: 640 pixels wide by 360 pixels deep
• Recommended frame rate: 24 fps (or 23.976 fps), 25 and 30 fps (or 29.97 fps)
• Maximum length: ≤5 minutes
• Desired aspect ratio: 4:3 (standard) or 16:9 (widescreen)
• If compression is required to reduce file size for uploading, please use a minimum bit rate of 10,000 kbit/s – 20,000 kbit/s
• When filming, please use a landscape orientation, not a portrait orientation. This is especially important when filming video or taking photographs with a smartphone or a mobile device.

Verify that the videos are viewable in QuickTime or Windows Media Player before uploading.

For each video, provide an in-text citation (eg, Video 1). At the end of the manuscript file, include a title (a brief phrase, preferably no longer than 10 to 15 words) and a caption that includes the file format and a brief explanation for each video. The same title and caption must be entered in the designated fields in the manuscript submission system when uploading each video. If multiple video files are submitted, number them in the order in which they should be viewed.

If patient(s) are identifiable in the video, authors must submit a Patient Permission form completed and signed by each patient. See also Patient Identification .

If the author does not hold copyright to the video, the author must obtain permission for the video to be published in the journal. This permission must be for unrestricted use in all print, online, and licensed versions of the journal.

NOTE: If your manuscript and accompanying videos are accepted for publication, the video files will be placed into a journal video frame and will be edited by JAMA Network video production staff according to journal style. In addition, a JAMA Network staff person may contact you to resubmit your videos to meet our production specifications. For example, a larger size may be needed, and if your videos were submitted with embedded text such as titles, annotations, labels, or captions, we will ask you to remove the text at this stage and resubmit the video without text, and JAMA Network video production will re-create all text using our house style.

Guidelines for Optimal Video Quality

• Use plenty of diffuse light; avoid shadows.
• Use the appropriate white-balance based on your lighting conditions. Different cameras have different settings, but most have presets for incandescent (yellow) light, fluorescent light, daylight, and tungsten light. Please make sure to select the correct one so that the color of your footage renders accurately.
• Do not overexpose the image; a bit underexposed is preferable.
• Use a tripod. This is especially important in close-ups.
• Avoid excessive zooming. Use the optical zoom only; do not use a digital zoom.
• Turn off all camera special effects.
• Avoid using autofocus. Manual focus is more accurate. Keep the camera at a fixed distance from the subject.
• Instruct people on camera to speak clearly and face the camera when speaking. Try to avoid large movements while speaking or immediately after speaking. Allow pauses before and after speaking for easier editing.
• If the situation permits, ensure that individuals being filmed are not wearing white clothing or clothing with busy patterns or stripes, especially shirts, jackets, and ties. Subdued medium blue, brown, tan, beige, and green colors all work well for shirt and clothing choices.
• Do not include an introduction by the physician as a "talking head" explaining a procedure. All footage should be of the procedure or relevant subject matter only.
• Record a few extra seconds before and after each cut or after changing the camera's position. This allows for easier editing.

Additional Considerations for Filming Surgical Procedures

• Coordinate with the surgical staff to establish a vantage point for the camera that has a clear view of the surgical field.
• Before the procedure, if the situation permits, identify the surgical staff's positions for access into and out of the surgical field to ensure there is no immediate obstruction of the camera.
• During the procedure, avoid typical obstructions of the camera's main view such as arms reaching across the field or soiled surgical sponges. Where possible, keep the heads, hands, and any instruments away from the immediate sightline of the camera. This will ensure that all moments of the procedure are captured in full view and focus.
• If the situation permits a choice of glove type, use brown or tan. White gloves reflect bright light; vividly colored surgical gloves can distract the viewer from the teaching point of the video.
• If the situation permits, avoid rapid movements for procedural steps that should be noticed and understood. To demonstrate a key moment or use of an instrument, movement that is deliberate and steady will allow a standard camera to focus properly.

For editorial and review of an initial submission, submit audio files according to the following minimum requirements:

• Acceptable file formats: .mp3, .wav, or .aiff
• Maximum file size: 25 MB
• To achieve the best quality, use a setting of 256 kbps or higher for stereo or 128 kbps or higher for mono.
• Sampling rate should be either 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz.
• Bit rate should be either 16 or 24 bit.
• To avoid audible clipping noise, please make sure that audio levels do not exceed 0 dBFS.

For each audio file, provide an in-text citation. At the end of the manuscript, include a title (a brief phrase, preferably no longer than 10-15 words) and a caption that includes the file format and a brief explanation for each audio.

NOTE: If your manuscript is accepted for publication, JAMA Network video production staff may contact you to request an original uncompressed audio file in .wav or .aiff format. There is no maximum file size requirement for publication at this stage.

After Submission

Authors will be sent notifications of the receipt of manuscripts and editorial decisions by email. During the review process, authors can check the status of their submitted manuscript via the online manuscript submission and review system . Authors should not disclose the fact that their manuscript has been submitted to anyone, except coauthors and contributors, without permission of the editor.

All submitted manuscripts are reviewed initially by one of the editors. Manuscripts are evaluated according to the following criteria: material is original and timely, writing is clear, study methods are appropriate, data are valid, conclusions are reasonable and supported by the data, information is important, and topic has general interest to readers of this journal. From these basic criteria, the editors assess a paper's eligibility for publication. Manuscripts with insufficient priority for publication are rejected promptly. Other manuscripts are sent to expert consultants for peer review. The journal uses a single-anonymized peer review process: peer reviewer identities are kept confidential (unless reviewers choose to reveal their names in their formal reviews); author identities are made known to reviewers. The existence of a manuscript under review is not revealed to anyone other than peer reviewers and editorial staff. Peer reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality about the manuscripts they review and must not divulge any information about a specific manuscript or its content to any third party without prior permission from the journal editors. Reviewers are instructed to not submit confidential manuscripts, abstracts, or other text into a chatbot, language model, or similar tool. At submission, authors may choose to have manuscripts that are not accepted by the journal referred to one of the JAMA Network specialty journals and/or JAMA Network Open along with reviewers' comments (if available). Information from submitted manuscripts may be systematically collected and analyzed as part of research to improve the quality of the editorial or peer review process. Identifying information remains confidential. Final decisions regarding manuscript publication are made by an editor who does not have any relevant conflicts of interest.

At the time of manuscript submission, authors may preselect the option to have their manuscript and reviewers' comments automatically referred to one of the JAMA Network specialty journals if the manuscript is not accepted by JAMA .

JAMA -EXPRESS

JAMA -EXPRESS provides rapid peer review and publication of major clinical trials and other original research studies that have immediate or public health importance. Authors who wish to have manuscripts considered for JAMA -EXPRESS should send the manuscript file and a request letter to [email protected] or call (312) 464-4444. Authors will be notified promptly whether the manuscript is approved for rapid peer review. Authors of those manuscripts determined not to qualify for rapid review may be invited to submit the manuscript for further consideration under the standard review process.

Authors may appeal decisions. All appeals are reviewed by the editor in chief, on a case-by-case basis, or a designated editor if the editor in chief is recused from the review.

After Revision/Acceptance

All authors are required to complete an Authorship Form and Publishing Agreement. See Authorship Criteria and Contributions .

Accepted manuscripts are edited in accordance with the AMA Manual of Style , 2 and returned to the corresponding author (or her/his designee) for approval. Authors are responsible for all statements made in their work, including changes made during editing and production that are authorized by the corresponding author.

Authors should not disclose the fact that their manuscript has been accepted to anyone, except coauthors and contributors, until it is published without permission of the editor or as described in the guidance on Previous or Planned Meeting Presentaton or Release of Information and Embargo Policy .

If accepted for publication, all articles are published quickly in one of JAMA 's weekly print/online issues; selected articles are published Online First.

After Publication

Postpublication correspondence.

For accepted manuscripts, the corresponding author will be asked to respond to letters to the editor.

Reprints and e-prints may be ordered online when the edited manuscript is sent for approval to the corresponding author.

Requests to publish corrections should be sent to the editorial office. Errors and requests for corrections are reviewed by editors and authors, and, if warranted, a Correction notice summarizing the errors and corrections is published promptly and linked online to the original article, and the original article is corrected online with the date of correction. 15

First and last authors of peer-reviewed articles are eligible to receive CME credit. See CME From the JAMA Network .

About Previous Release of Information, Embargo, and Access

Manuscripts are considered with the understanding that they have not been published previously and are not under consideration by another publication.

Copies of all related or similar manuscripts and reports by the same authors (ie, those containing substantially similar content or using the same, similar, or a subset of data) that have been previously published or posted electronically or are under consideration elsewhere must be provided at the time of manuscript submission. All related previously published articles should be cited as references and described in the submitted manuscript along with explanation of how the submitted manuscript differs from the related previously published article(s).

Manuscripts that have been previously posted on a preprint server may be submitted for consideration for publication. When the manuscript is submitted, authors must provide information about the preprint, including a link to it and a description of whether the submitted manuscript has been revised or differs from the preprint.

See also Previous or Planned Meeting Presentation or Release of Information and Research Article Public Access, Depositing in Repositories, and Discoverability.

Meeting presentation: A complete manuscript submitted to the journal following or prior to presentation at a scientific meeting or publication of preliminary findings elsewhere (ie, as an abstract) is eligible for consideration for publication. Authors considering presenting or planning to present the work at an upcoming scientific meeting should indicate the name and date of the meeting on the manuscript submission form. For accepted papers, the editors may be able to coordinate publication with the meeting presentation. Authors of submitted papers, including those accepted but not yet published, should not disclose the status of such papers during such meeting presentations that occur before the work is published. Authors who present information contained in a manuscript that is under consideration by this journal during scientific or clinical meetings should not distribute complete reports (ie, copies of manuscripts) or full data presented as tables and figures to conference attendees or journalists. Publication of abstracts in print and online conference proceedings, as well as posting of slides or videos from the scientific presentation on the meeting website, is acceptable. However, for manuscripts under consideration by this journal, publication of full reports in meeting proceedings or online, issuing detailed news releases reporting the results of the study that go beyond the meeting abstract, or participation in formal news conferences will ordinarily jeopardize chances for publication of the submitted manuscript in this journal. 5 Media coverage of presentations at scientific meetings will not jeopardize consideration, but direct release of information through press releases or news media briefings may preclude consideration of the manuscript by this journal. 5 Rare instances of papers reporting public health emergencies should be discussed with the editor. Authors submitting manuscripts or letters to the editor regarding adverse drug or medical device reactions, reportable diseases, etc, should also report this information to the relevant government agency.

Authors should not release information about accepted manuscripts via social media until publication.

See also Previous Publication, Related Manuscripts and Reports, and Preprints . For more information, see the AMA Manual of Style .

Authors should not disclose the fact that their manuscript has been accepted to anyone, except coauthors and contributors, without permission of the editor until it is published. All information regarding the content and publication date of accepted manuscripts is strictly confidential. Unauthorized prepublication release of accepted manuscripts and information about planned publication date may result in rescinding the acceptance and rejecting the paper. This policy applies to all categories of articles, including research, review, opinion, correspondence, etc. Information contained in or about accepted articles cannot appear in print, audio, video, or digital form or be released by the news media until the specified embargo release date. 2 , 5 See also Previous or Planned Meeting Presentation or Release of Information .

The journal makes all JAMA research articles free public access 6 months after publication on the journal website.

Authors of research articles may deposit the accepted version (ie, the peer-reviewed manuscript that you submitted on which this decision is based) of the manuscript in a repository of your choice on or after the date of publication provided that it links to the final published version on the journal website. You may not deposit the published article (version of record), which is the final copyedited, formatted, and proofed version published by the journal. The journal will deposit a copy of the published research article into PubMed Central (PMC) at the time of publication, where it will be publicly available 6 months after publication. A few weeks after publication, you may obtain your PMCID on the PMC site at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/pmctopmid/ . These options apply only to research articles. Non-research articles may not be deposited into repositories.

In addition, the journal will add metadata to all articles to ensure web-based search engine discoverability and will provide publicly discoverable information about your article to PubMed/Medline and numerous other bibliographic databases on the day of publication.

Author Responsibilities

Most of the JAMA Network journals' editorial policies for authors are summarized in these instructions. Citations and links to the AMA Manual of Style: A Guide for Authors and Editors 2 and other publications with additional information are also provided.

Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content. 2 One or more authors should take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, from inception to published article. According to the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), 4 authorship credit should be based on the following 4 criteria:

• substantial contributions to conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; and
• drafting of the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; and
• final approval of the version to be published; and
• agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Each author should be accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done. In addition, each author should be able to identify which coauthors are responsible for specific other parts of the work and should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of any coauthors.

All those designated as authors should meet all 4 criteria for authorship, and all who meet the 4 criteria should be identified as authors. Those who do not meet all 4 criteria should be acknowledged (see Acknowledgment Section ).

All authors (ie, the corresponding author and each coauthor) must read, complete, and submit an electronic Authorship Form with required statements on Authorship Responsibility, Criteria, and Contributions; Confirmation of Reporting Conflicts of Interest and Funding; and Publishing Agreement. 2(pp128-133) In addition, authors are required to identify their specific contributions to the work described in the manuscript. Requests by authors to designate equal contributions or shared authorship positions (eg, co-first authorship) may be considered if justified and within reason. 6 An email with links to the Authorship Form will be sent to authors for completion after manuscripts have been submitted.

For reports of original data, authors' specific contributions will be published in the Acknowledgment section (see Manuscript Preparation and Submission Requirements , Acknowledgment section ). 2 All other persons who have made substantial contributions to the work reported in this manuscript (eg, data collection, analysis, or writing or editing assistance) but who do not fulfill the authorship criteria should be named with their specific contributions and affiliations in an Acknowledgment in the manuscript. Written permission to include the names of individuals in the Acknowledgment section must be obtained.

Nonhuman artificial intelligence, language models, machine learning, or similar technologies do not qualify for authorship. If these models or tools are used to create content or assist with writing or manuscript preparation, authors must take responsibility for the integrity of the content generated by these tools. Authors should report the use of artificial intelligence, language models, machine learning, or similar technologies to create content or assist with writing or editing of manuscripts in the Acknowledgment section or Methods section if this is part of formal research design or methods. See also Use of AI in Publication and Research , Reproduced and Re-created Material , and Image Integrity .

The authors also must certify that the manuscript represents valid work and that neither this manuscript nor one with substantially similar content under their authorship has been published or is being considered for publication elsewhere (see also About Previous Release of Information, Embargo, and Access ). 2 Authors of manuscripts reporting original data or systematic reviews must provide an access to data statement from 1 or 2 named authors, often the corresponding author (see also Data Access, Responsibility, and Analysis ). If requested, authors should be prepared to provide the data and must cooperate fully in obtaining and providing the data on which the manuscript is based for examination by the editors or their assignees.

A single corresponding author (or coauthor designee in the event that the corresponding author is unavailable) will serve on behalf of all coauthors as the primary correspondent with the editorial office during the submission and review process. If the manuscript is accepted, the corresponding author will review an edited manuscript and proof, make decisions regarding release of information in the manuscript to the news media or federal agencies, handle all postpublication communications and inquiries, and will be identified as the corresponding author in the published article.

The corresponding author also is responsible for ensuring that the Acknowledgment section of the manuscript is complete (see Acknowledgment Section ) and that the conflict of interest disclosures reported in the Acknowledgment section of the manuscript are accurate, up-to-date, and consistent with the information provided in each author's potential conflicts of interest section in the Authorship Form (see Conflicts of Interest and Financial Disclosures ).

The corresponding author also must complete the Acknowledgment statement part of the Authorship Form confirming that all persons who have contributed substantially but who are not authors are identified in the Acknowledgment section and that written permission from each person acknowledged has been obtained (see Acknowledgment Section ).

Requests for co-corresponding authors will be considered on a very limited basis if justified, but no more than 2 co-corresponding authors will be permitted. In such cases, a primary corresponding author must be designated as the point of contact responsible for all communication about the manuscript and article, manage the tasks described above, and will be listed first in the corresponding author section. 6 To read more about the role and responsibilities of corresponding authors, see the AMA Manual of Style .

Authors should determine the order of authorship among themselves and should settle any disagreements before submitting their manuscript. Changes in authorship (ie, order, addition, and deletion of authors) should be discussed and approved by all authors. Any requests for such changes in authorship after initial manuscript submission and before publication should be explained in writing to the editor in a letter or email from all authors. 2(pp128-133)

The JAMA Network recognizes that authors may change their names for personal reasons, and the editors respect authors' rights to autonomy and privacy in this regard. Authors who request confidential name changes after publication because of changes in identity, marital status, religion, or other reasons may have their names changed in articles without indication of the reason for the change and without a formal correction notice. If an author prefers this change to be public, a formal Correction notice can be issued, with or without the reason per author preference. The journal will not request the approval of coauthors, but the requesting author may wish to notify coauthors if this change will affect subsequent citations to the article. The requester may be asked to notify the corresponding author about this change to the published article; alternatively, the journal may inform the corresponding author of this change (without explaining the reason for the change). The journal will make this change to the online and PDF versions of the published article and will notify postpublication indexes and databases as a standard process but cannot guarantee when or if the change will be reflected in these indexes and databases.

If authorship is attributed to a group (either solely or in addition to 1 or more individual authors), all members of the group must meet the full criteria and requirements for authorship as described above, and all group member authors must complete Authorship Forms. 6 If all members of a group do not meet all authorship criteria, a group must designate 1 or more individuals as authors or members of a writing group who meet full authorship criteria and requirements and who will take responsibility for the group. 2 , 6 Group names should appear at the end of the byline and should not be interspersed within the list of individually named authors. Group authors may not be included for article types with limited numbers of authors (eg, opinion articles).

For articles with a large number of authors (eg, >50), a long list of authors will not fit in the byline of a print/PDF version of the article. In such cases, a group byline will be recommended with the individual names of each author listed at the end of the article. All author names would still be individually indexed, displayed, and easily searchable in bibliographic records such as PubMed. 6

Nonauthor Collaborators: Other group members who do not meet the criteria for authorship (eg, investigators, advisors, assistants) may be identified. For group author manuscripts, a Nonauthor Collaborator Template (with names, academic degrees, institution, location, role/contribution, and subgroup) must be completed during revision. The template will be available to authors with the request for revision. The collaborators will be published in an online Supplement based on this template and will be deposited to PubMed.

To read more about authorship, click here .

A conflict of interest may exist when an author (or the author's institution or employer) has financial or personal relationships or affiliations that could influence (or bias) the author's decisions, work, or manuscript. All authors are required to report potential conflicts of interest including specific financial interests relevant to the subject of their manuscript in the Acknowledgment section of the manuscript 2 and in the Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest section of the Authorship Form. Note: These forms will be requested after a manuscript has been submitted, but authors should also include conflict of interest disclosures in the Acknowledgment section of the submitted manuscript.

Definitions and Terms of Conflicts of Interest Disclosures:

Authors are expected to provide detailed information about all relevant financial interests, activities, relationships, and affiliations (other than those affiliations listed in the title page of the manuscript) including, but not limited to, employment, affiliation, funding and grants received or pending, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speakers' bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Following the guidelines of the ICMJE, 4 the definitions and terms of such disclosures include

Any potential conflicts of interest "involving the work under consideration for publication" (during the time involving the work, from initial conception and planning to present), Any "relevant financial activities outside the submitted work" (over the 3 years prior to submission), and Any "other relationships or activities that readers could perceive to have influenced, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing" what is written in the submitted work (based on all relationships that were present during the 3 years prior to submission).

Authors without conflicts of interest, including relevant financial interests, activities, relationships, and affiliations, should indicate such in their disclosures and include a statement of no such interests in the Acknowledgment section of the manuscript. Failure to include this information in the manuscript may delay evaluation and review of the manuscript. Authors should err on the side of full disclosure and should contact the editorial office if they have questions or concerns.

Although many universities and other institutions and organizations have established policies and thresholds for reporting financial interests and other conflicts of interest, the JAMA Network requires complete disclosure of all relevant financial relationships and potential financial conflicts of interest, regardless of amount or value. For example, authors of a manuscript about hypertension should report all financial relationships they have with all manufacturers and owners of products, devices, tests, and services used in the management of hypertension, not only those relationships with entities whose specific products, devices, tests, and services are mentioned in the manuscript. If authors are uncertain about what constitutes a relevant financial interest or relationship, they should contact the editorial office.

For all accepted manuscripts, the corresponding author will have been asked to confirm that each coauthor's disclosures of conflicts of interest and relevant financial interests, activities, relationships, and affiliations and declarations of no such interests are accurate, up-to-date, and consistent with the disclosures reported in the Acknowledgment section of the manuscript because this information will be published in the Acknowledgment section of the article. Decisions about whether such information provided by authors should be published, and thereby disclosed to readers, are usually straightforward. Although editors are willing to discuss disclosure of specific conflicts of interest with authors, JAMA Network policy is one of complete disclosure of all potential conflicts of interest, including relevant financial interests, activities, relationships, and affiliations (other than those affiliations listed in the title page of the manuscript). The policy requiring disclosure of conflicts of interest applies for all manuscript submissions, including letters to the editor. If an author's disclosure of potential conflicts of interest is determined to be inaccurate or incomplete after publication, a correction will be published to rectify the original published disclosure statement, and additional action may be taken as necessary.

All authors must also complete the Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest section of the Authorship Form. 7

All financial and material support for the research and the work should be clearly and completely identified in an Acknowledgment section of the manuscript. At the time of submission, information on the funding source (including grant identification) must also be completed via the online manuscript submission and review system. The specific role of the funding organization or sponsor in each of the following should be specified: "design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication." 7 To read more about reporting funding and other support, see the AMA Manual of Style .

For all reports (regardless of funding source) containing original data, at least 1 named author (eg, the principal investigator), and no more than 2 authors, must indicate that she or he "had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis." 7 This exact statement should be included in the Acknowledgment section at the end of the manuscript. Modified statements or generic statements indicating that all authors had such access are not acceptable. In addition, for all reports containing original data, the names and affiliations of all authors (or other individuals) who conducted and are responsible for the data analysis must be indicated in the Acknowledgment section of the manuscript. If the individual who conducted the analysis is not named as an author, a detailed explanation of his/her contributions and reasons for his/her involvement with the data analysis should be included.

For all reports of research, authors are required to provide a Data Sharing Statement to indicate if data will or will not be shared. Specific questions regarding the sharing of data are included in the manuscript submission system. If authors choose to share or not share data, this information will be published in a Data Sharing Statement in an online supplement linked to the published article. Authors will be asked to identify the data, including individual patient data, a data dictionary that defines each field in the data set, and supporting documentation (eg, statistical/analytic code), that will be made available to others; when, where, and how the data will be available (eg, a link to a data repository); types of analyses that are permitted; and if there will be any restrictions on the use of the data. Authors also have the option to explain why data may not be shared. A list of generalist public repositories that authors may consider using is available from the National Library of Medicine .

The Acknowledgment section is the general term for the list of contributions, disclosures, credits, and other information included at the end of the text of a manuscript but before the references. The Acknowledgment section includes authors' contributions; information on author access to data; disclosure of potential conflicts of interest, including financial interests, activities, relationships, and affiliations; sources of funding and support; an explanation of the role of funder(s)/sponsor(s); names, degrees, and affiliations of participants in a large study or other group (ie, collaborators); any important disclaimers; information on previous presentation of the information reported in the manuscript; and the contributions, names, degrees, affiliations, and indication if compensation has been received for all persons who have made substantial contributions to the work but who are not authors. 2

All other persons who have made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (eg, data collection, analysis, and writing or editing assistance) but who do not fulfill the authorship criteria should be named with their specific contributions in an Acknowledgment in the manuscript.

Authors must obtain written permission to include the names of all individuals included in the Acknowledgment section, and the corresponding author must confirm that such permission has been obtained in the Authorship Form.

Authors should report the use of artificial intelligence, language models, machine learning, or similar technologies to create content or assist with writing or editing of manuscripts in the Acknowledgment section or the Methods section if this is part of formal research design or methods. This should include a description of the content that was created or edited and the name of the language model or tool, version and extension numbers, manufacturer, date(s) of use, and confirmation that the authors take responsibility for the integrity of the content generated. (Note: this does not include basic tools for checking grammar, spelling, references, etc.) See also Use of AI in Publication and Research and Statistical Analysis Subsection .

Requirements for Reporting

Authors of research articles should follow the EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines . See specific Study Types for detailed guidance on reporting.

Causal language (including use of terms such as effect and efficacy) should be used only for randomized clinical trials. For all other study designs (including meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials), methods and results should be described in terms of association or correlation and should avoid cause-and-effect wording. To read more about use of causal language, see the AMA Manual of Style .

Research reports should be timely and current and should be based on data collected as recently as possible. Manuscripts based on data from randomized clinical trials should be reported as soon as possible after the trial has ended, ideally within 1 year after follow-up has been completed.

For cohort studies, the date of final follow-up should be no more than 5 years before manuscript submission. Likewise, data used in case-control or cross-sectional studies should have been collected as recently as possible, but no more than 5 years before manuscript submission. Manuscripts in which the most recent data have been collected more than 5 years ago ordinarily will receive lower priority for publication; thus, authors of such manuscripts should provide a detailed explanation of the relevance of the information in light of current knowledge and medical practice as well as the most recent date(s) of analysis of the study.

General Considerations

Authors are encouraged to consult "Reporting Statistical Information in Medical Journal Articles." 1 In the Methods section, describe statistical methods with enough detail to enable a knowledgeable reader with access to the original data to reproduce the reported results. Such description should include appropriate references to the original literature, particularly for uncommon statistical methods. For more advanced or novel methods, provide a brief explanation of the methods and appropriate use in the text and consider providing a detailed description in an online supplement.

In the reporting of results, when possible, quantify findings and present them with appropriate indicators of measurement error or uncertainty, such as confidence intervals (see Reporting Standards and Data Presentation ). Avoid relying solely on statistical hypothesis testing, such as the use of P values, which fails to convey important quantitative information. For observational studies, provide the numbers of observations. For randomized trials, provide the numbers randomized. Report losses to observation or follow up (see Missing Data ). For multivariable models, report all variables included in models, and report model diagnostics and overall fit of the model when available (see Statistical Procedures ).

Define statistical terms, abbreviations, and symbols, if included. Avoid nontechnical uses of technical terms in statistics, such as correlation, normal, predictor, random, sample, significant, trend. Do not use inappropriate hedge terms such as marginal significance or trend toward significance for results that are not statistically significant. Causal language (including use of terms such as effect and efficacy) should be used only for randomized clinical trials. For all other study designs (including meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials), methods and results should be described in terms of association or correlation and should avoid cause-and-effect wording.

Sample Size Calculations

For randomized trials, a statement of the power or sample size calculation is required (see the EQUATOR Network CONSORT Guidelines ). For observational studies that use an established population, a power calculation is not generally required when the sample size is fixed. However, if the sample size was determined by the researchers, through any type of sampling or matching, then there should be some justification for the number sampled. In any case, describe power and sample size calculations at the beginning of the Statistical Methods section, following the general description of the study population.

Descriptive Statistics

It is generally not necessary to provide a detailed description of the methods used to generate summary statistics, but the tests should be briefly noted in the Methods section (eg, ANOVA or Fisher exact test).

Statistical Procedures

Identify regression models with more than 1 independent variable as multivariable and regression models with more than 1 dependent variable as multivariate. Report all variables included in models, as well as any mathematical transformations of those variables. Provide the scientific rationale (clinical, statistical, or otherwise) for including variables in regression models.

For regression models fit to dependent data (eg, clustered or longitudinal data), the models should account for the correlations that arise from clustering and/or repeated measures. Failure to account for such correlation will result in incorrect estimates of uncertainty (eg, confidence intervals). Describe how the model accounted for correlation. For example, for an analysis based on generalized estimating equations, identify the assumed correlation structure and whether robust (or, sandwich) variance estimators were used. Or, for an analysis based on mixed-effects models, identify the assumed structure for the random effects, such as the level of random intercepts and whether any random slopes were included. Fixed-effects estimation should be described as conditional likelihood. Avoid the term fixed effects for describing covariates.

Missing Data

Report losses to observation, such as dropouts from a clinical trial or those lost to follow-up or unavailable in an observational study. If some participants are excluded from analyses because of missing or incomplete data, provide a supplementary table that compares the observed characteristics between participants with complete and incomplete data. Consider multiple imputation methods to impute missing data and include an assessment of whether data were missing at random. Approaches based on "last observation carried forward" should not be used.

Primary Outcomes, Multiple Comparisons, and Post Hoc Comparisons

Both randomized and observational studies should identify the primary outcome(s) before the study began, as well as any prespecified secondary, subgroup, and/or sensitivity analyses. Comparisons arrived at during the course of the analysis or after the study was completed should be identified as post hoc. For analyses of more than 1 primary outcome, corrections for multiple testing should generally be used. For secondary outcomes, address multiple comparisons or consider such analyses as exploratory and interpret them as hypothesis-generating. The reporting of all outcomes should match that included in study protocols. For randomized clinical trials, protocols with complete statistical analysis plans should be cited in the Methods section and submitted as online supplementary content. Randomized clinical trials should be primarily analyzed according to the intention-to-treat approach. Deviations from strict intention-to-treat analysis should be described as "modified intention-to-treat," with the modifications clearly described.

Statistical Analysis Subsection

At the end of the Methods section, briefly describe the statistical tests used for the analysis. State any a priori levels of significance and whether hypothesis tests were 1- or 2-sided. Also include the statistical software used to perform the analysis, including the version and manufacturer, along with any extension packages (eg, the svy suite of commands in Stata or the survival package in R). Do not describe software commands (eg, SAS proc mixed was used to fit a linear mixed-effects model). If analysis code is included, it should be placed in the online supplementary content.

Reporting Standards and Data Presentation

Analyses should follow EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines and be consistent with the protocol and statistical analysis plan, or described as post hoc.

When possible, present numerical results (eg, absolute numbers and/or rates) with appropriate indicators of uncertainty, such as confidence intervals. Include absolute numbers and/or rates with any ratio measures and avoid redundant reporting of relative data (eg, % increase or decrease). Use means and standard deviations (SDs) for normally distributed data and medians and ranges or interquartile ranges (IQRs) for data that are not normally distributed. Avoid solely reporting the results of statistical hypothesis testing, such as P values, which fail to convey important quantitative information. For most studies, P values should follow the reporting of comparisons of absolute numbers or rates and measures of uncertainty (eg, 0.8%, 95% CI −0.2% to 1.8%; P  = .13). P values should never be presented alone without the data that are being compared. If P values are reported, follow standard conventions for decimal places: for P values less than .001, report as " P <.001"; for P values between .001 and .01, report the value to the nearest thousandth; for P values greater than or equal to .01, report the value to the nearest hundredth; and for P values greater than .99, report as " P >.99." For studies with exponentially small P values (eg, genetic association studies), P values may be reported with exponents (eg, P  = 1×10 −5 ). In general, there is no need to present the values of test statistics (eg, F statistics or χ² results) and degrees of freedom when reporting results.

For secondary and subgroup analyses, there should be a description of how the potential for type I error due to multiple comparisons was handled, for example, by adjustment of the significance threshold. In the absence of some approach, these analyses should generally be described and interpreted as exploratory, as should all post hoc analyses.

For randomized trials using parallel-group design, there is no validity in conducting hypothesis tests regarding the distribution of baseline covariates between groups; by definition, these differences are due to chance. Because of this, tables of baseline participant characteristics should not include P values or statements of statistical comparisons among randomized groups. Instead, report clinically meaningful imbalances between groups, along with potential adjustments for those imbalances in multivariable models. To read more about statistical tests and data presentation, see the AMA Manual of Style .

Researchers are encouraged to report studies that include diverse and representative participants and to indicate participant inclusion and exclusion criteria and how the findings generalize to the population(s) that are the focus of or are compatible with the research question. Aggregate, deidentified demographic information (eg, age, sex, race and ethnicity, and socioeconomic indicators) should be reported for all research reports along all prespecified outcomes. Demographic variables collected for a specific study should be reported in the Methods section. Demographic information assessed should be reported in the Results section, either in the main article or in an online supplement or both. If any demographic characteristics that were collected are not reported, the reason should be stated. Summary demographic information (eg, baseline characteristics of study participants) should be reported in the first line of the Results section of Abstracts.

Reporting Age

Study inclusion or exclusion criteria by age or age group should be defined in the Methods section. Stratification by age groups should be based on relevance to disease, condition, or population (eg, <5 or >65 years). The ages for study participants should be reported in aggregate (ie, mean and SD or median and IQR or range) in the Results section.

Reporting Sex and Gender

The term sex should be used when reporting biological factors and gender should be used when reporting gender identity or psychosocial/cultural factors. The methods used to obtain information on sex, gender, or both (eg, self-reported, investigator observed or classified, or laboratory test) should be explained in the Methods section. 12 The distribution of study participants or samples should be reported in the Results section, including for studies of humans, tissues, cells, or animals. All participants should be reported, not just the category that represents the majority of the sample. Studies that address pregnancy should follow these recommendations, and if the gender identity of participants was not assessed, use the terms pregnant participants , pregnant individuals , pregnant patients , etc, as appropriate.

In research articles, follow recommendations to include all representative populations in study design, data analyses, results, and interpretation of findings. Report sex or gender of study participants, including how sex or gender was defined and assessed. Whenever possible, all main outcomes should be reported by sex or gender (or both if appropriate). In nonresearch reports, choose gender-neutral and sex-neutral terms that avoid bias, suit the material under discussion, and are not confusing to readers. See the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines for additional guidance.

Reporting Race and Ethnicity

The Methods section should include an explanation of who identified participant race and ethnicity and the source of the classifications used (eg, self-report or selection, investigator observed, database, electronic health record, survey instrument).

If race and ethnicity categories were collected for a study, the reasons that these were assessed also should be described in the Methods section. If collection of data on race and ethnicity was required by the funding agency, that should be noted.

Specific racial and ethnic categories are preferred over collective terms, when possible. Authors should report the specific categories used in their studies and recognize that these categories will differ based on the databases or surveys used, the requirements of funders, and the geographic location of data collection or study participants. Categories included in groups labeled as "other" should be defined.

Categories should be listed in alphabetical order in text and tables.

Race and ethnicity of the study population should be reported in the Results section.

For additional information, see " Updated Guidance on Reporting Race and Ethnicity in Medical and Science Journals " and the Summary Guide for Preferred Terms When Reporting Race and Ethnicity .

For all manuscripts reporting data from studies involving human participants or animals, formal review and approval, or formal review and waiver, by an appropriate institutional review board or ethics committee is required and should be described in the Methods section. 2(p226) For those investigators who do not have formal ethics review committees, the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki should be followed. 13 For investigations of humans, state in the Methods section the manner in which informed consent was obtained from the study participants (ie, oral or written) and whether participants received a stipend. Authors of research studies involving humans should not make independent determinations of exemption or exclusion of IRB or ethical review; they should cite the institutional or regulatory policy for that determination and indicate if the data are deidentified and publicly available or protected by prior consent or privacy safeguards. Editors may request that authors provide documentation of the formal review and recommendation from the institutional review board or ethics committee responsible for oversight of the study.

A signed statement of informed consent to publish patient descriptions, photographs, video, and pedigrees should be obtained from all persons (parents or legal guardians for minors) who can be identified (including by the patients themselves) i/n such written descriptions, photographs, or pedigrees and should be submitted with the manuscript and indicated in the Acknowledgment section of the manuscript. Such persons should be offered the opportunity to see the manuscript before its submission. 2(pp229-232)

Omitting data or making data less specific to deidentify patients is acceptable, but changing any such data is not acceptable. Only those details essential for understanding and interpreting a specific case report or case series should be provided. Although the degree of specificity needed will depend on the context of what is being reported, specific ages, race/ethnicity, and other sociodemographic details should be presented only if clinically or scientifically relevant and important. 2 Cropping of photographs to remove identifiable personal features that are not essential to the clinical message may be permitted as long as the photographs are not otherwise altered. Please do not submit masked photographs of patients. Patients' initials or other personal identifiers must not appear in an image.

Patient Permission Form:

The Patient Permission form for publication of identifying material is available here . Translated versions in Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Hindi, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, and Spanish are available on request.

AI Used in Manuscript Preparation

When traditional and generative AI technologies are used to create, review, revise, or edit any of the content in a manuscript, authors should report in the Acknowledgment section the following:

• Name of the AI software platform, program, or tool
• Version and extension numbers
• Manufacturer
• Date(s) of use
• A brief description of how the AI was used and on what portions of the manuscript or content
• Confirmation that the author(s) take responsibility for the integrity of the content generated

Note this guidance does not apply to basic tools for checking grammar, spelling, references, and similar.

AI Used in Research

When AI (eg, large language model [LLM] or natural language processing [NLP], supervised or unsupervised machine learning [ML] for predictive/prescriptive or clustering tasks, chatbots, or similar other technologies) is used as part of a scientific study, authors should:

• Follow relevant reporting guidelines for specific study designs when they exist and report each recommended guideline element with sufficient detail to enable reproducibility.
• Avoid inclusion of identifiable patient information in text, tables, and figures.
• Be aware of copyright and intellectual property concerns.
• If content protected by copyright was entered into the AI model by authors, include a copy of the permission or license from the copyright owner and describe this permission/license in the Methods section.
• If content (text, images, multimedia) generated by AI is included in a submitted manuscript or supplemental material, indicate rights or permissions to publish that content as determined by the AI service or owner in the Methods section or in the legend(s) of any AI-generated figures or multimedia.

Also address the following:

Methods Section

• Include the study design and, if a relevant reporting guideline exists, indicate how it was followed, with sufficient detail to enable reproducibility.
• Describe how AI was used for specific aspects of the study (eg, to generate or refine study hypotheses, assist in the generation of a list of adjustment variables, create graphs to show visual relationships).
• For studies using LLMs, provide the name of the platform or program, tool, version, and manufacturer; specify dates and prompt(s) used and their sequence and any revisions to prompts in response to initial outputs.
• For studies reporting ML and algorithm development, include details about data sets used for development, training, and validation. Clearly state if algorithms were trained and tested only on previously collected or existing data sets or if the study includes prospective deployment. Include the ML model and describe the variables and outcome(s) and selection of the fine-tuning parameters. Describe any assumptions involved (eg, log linearity, proportionality) and how these assumptions were tested.
• Indicate the metric used to evaluate the performance of the algorithms, including bias, discrimination, calibration, reclassification, and others as appropriate.
• Indicate the methods used to address missing data.
• Indicate institutional review board/ethics review, approval, waiver, or exemption.
• Describe methods or analyses included to address and manage AI-related methodologic bias and inaccuracy of AI-generated content.
• Indicate, when appropriate, if sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the performance of the AI model in vulnerable or underrepresented subgroups.
• Provide a data sharing statement, including if code will be shared.

Results Section

• When reporting comparisons, provide performance assessments (eg, against standard of care), include effect sizes and measures of uncertainty (eg, 95% CIs) and other measurements such as likelihood ratios, and include information about performance errors, inaccurate or missing data, and sufficient detail for others to reproduce the findings.
• Report the results of analyses to address methodologic bias and population representation.
• If examples of generated text or content are included in tables or figures, be sure to indicate the source and licensing information, as noted above.

Discussion Section

• Discuss the potential for AI-related bias and what was done to identify and mitigate such bias.
• Discuss the potential for inaccuracy of AI-generated content and what was done to identify and manage this.
• Discuss generalizability of findings across populations and results of analyses performed to explore the performance of the AI model in vulnerable or underrepresented subgroups.

A signed statement of permission should be included from each individual identified as a source of information in a personal communication or as a source for unpublished data, and the date of communication and whether the communication was written or oral should be specified. 2(p199) Personal communications should not be included in the list of references but added to the text parenthetically.

Authors and reviewers are expected to notify editors if a manuscript could be considered to report dual use research of concern (ie, research that could be misused by others to pose a threat to public health and safety, agriculture, plants, animals, the environment, or material). 14 The editor in chief will evaluate manuscripts that report potential dual use research of concern and, if necessary, consult additional reviewers.

Journal Policies

Final decisions regarding manuscript publication are made by the editor in chief or a designated editor who does not have any relevant conflicts of interest. The journal has a formal recusal process in place to help manage potential conflicts of interest of editors. In the event that an editor has a conflict of interest with a submitted manuscript or with the authors, the manuscript, review, and editorial decisions are managed by another designated editor without a conflict of interest related to the manuscript.

All authors are required to complete and submit a Publishing Agreement that is part of the journal's electronic Authorship Form. In this agreement, authors will transfer copyright or a publication license; or indicate that they are employed by a federal government; or indicate that they are an employee of an institution that considers the work in the manuscript a work for hire, in which case an authorized representative of that institution will assign copyright or a publication license on the author's behalf.

Published articles become the permanent property of the American Medical Association (AMA) and may not be published elsewhere without written permission. Unauthorized use of the journal's name, logo, or any content for commercial purposes or to promote commercial goods and services (in any format, including print, video, audio, and digital) is not permitted by the JAMA Network or the AMA.

1. Cummings P, Rivara FP. Reporting statistical information in medical journal articles. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med . 2003;157(4):321-324. doi:10.1001/archpedi.157.4.321

2. Iverson C, Christiansen S, Flanagin A, et al. AMA Manual of Style: A Guide for Authors and Editors . 11th ed. Oxford University Press; 2020. http://www.amamanualofstyle.com

3. Golub RM. Correspondence course: tips for getting a letter published in JAMA . JAMA . 2008;300(1):98-99. doi:10.1001/jama.300.1.98

4. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. Updated May 2023. Accessed May 18, 2023. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/

5. Fontanarosa PB, Flanagin A, DeAngelis CD. Update on JAMA 's policy on release of information to the public. JAMA . 2008;300(13):1585-1587. doi:10.1001/jama.300.13.1585

6. Fontanarosa P, Bauchner H, Flanagin A. Authorship and team science. JAMA . 2017;318(24):2433-2437. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.19341

7. Fontanarosa PB, Flanagin A, DeAngelis CD. Reporting conflicts of interest, financial aspects of research, and role of sponsors in funded studies. JAMA . 2005;294(1):110-111. doi:10.1001/jama.294.1.110

8. DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, et al; International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA . 2004;292(11):1363-1364. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.6933

9. DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, et al; International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Is this clinical trial fully registered? a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA . 2005;293(23):2927-2929. doi:10.1001/jama.293.23.jed50037

10. The CONSORT Group. The CONSORT statement. Updated 2014. Accessed September 23, 2016. http://www.consort-statement.org/consort-2010

11. American Association for Public Opinion Research. Best practices for survey research. Accessed March 23, 2023. https://aapor.org/standards-and-ethics/best-practices/

12. Clayton JA, Tannenbaum C. Reporting sex, gender, or both in clinical research? JAMA . 2016;316(18):1863-1864. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.16405

13. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA . 2013;310(20):2191-2194. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.281053

14. Journal Editors and Authors Group. Statement on scientific publication and security. Science . 2003;299(5610):1149. doi:10.1126/science.299.5610.1149 . Published correction appears in Science . 2003;299(5614):1845.

15. Christiansen S, Flanagin A. Correcting the medical literature: "to err is human, to correct divine." JAMA . 2017;318(9):804-805. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.11833

Last Updated: August 14, 2024

Quick Links

• Why Publish in JAMA
• Submit and Track Your Manuscript
• Author Reprints
• Permissions Requests
• Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
• Access PDFs of free articles
• Manage your interests
• Save searches and receive search alerts

Free All-in-One Office Suite with PDF Editor

Edit Word, Excel, and PPT for FREE.

Read, edit, and convert PDFs with the powerful PDF toolkit.

Microsoft-like interface, easy to use.

Windows • MacOS • Linux • iOS • Android

• Articles of Word

How to Write a Cover Letter [Tips with Examples]

As a writer, I did my fair share of job hunting. Despite my experience and expertise, I often struggled with impressing interviewers due to my lackluster cover letters. Limited resources and time constraints left my cover letters far from impressive. However, things changed when I mastered the art of writing compelling cover letters. Soon, I started receiving interview calls and eventually landed my dream job. In this article, I will share these cover letter writing techniques with you, so you too know how to write a cover letter and can effortlessly land the job of your dreams.

What is a Cover Letter and What does it Contain?

A cover letter is a one-page business letter that you submit along with your resume when applying for a job. Its primary purpose is to persuade the employer that you are an excellent candidate for the role. It complements your resume by clearly linking your experience and interests to the position you're applying for. Essentially, the cover letter is your chance to convince the employer to invite you for an interview.

A typical cover letter contains several key elements, each serving a specific purpose in showcasing your qualifications and enthusiasm for the position. Here’s a breakdown of what a cover letter typically includes:

Your Contact Information: Name, address, phone number, and email address.

Date: The date you are writing the letter.

Employer’s Contact Information: Name, title, company, and address of the person you are addressing the letter to.

2. Salutation

Address the letter to a specific person if possible (e.g., “Dear Mr. Smith,” or “Dear Hiring Manager,”).

3. Introduction

Opening Statement: A brief introduction mentioning the job you are applying for and how you found out about the position.

Hook: A compelling reason why you are interested in the job and the company.

First Paragraph: Explain why you are a good fit for the role. Highlight key qualifications and experiences that align with the job requirements.

Second Paragraph: Provide specific examples of your accomplishments and how they relate to the job. Use quantifiable achievements to demonstrate your impact.

Third Paragraph: Discuss your knowledge of the company and why you are excited about this particular opportunity. Show that you have researched the organization and explain how your goals align with its mission and values.

5. Conclusion

Closing Statement: Reiterate your enthusiasm for the position and the company. Summarize why you are a strong candidate.

Call to Action: Mention your desire for an interview and provide your contact information again. Indicate that you will follow up within a certain timeframe.

Thank You: Express gratitude for the reader’s time and consideration.

6. Signature

Closing Phrase: Use a professional closing, such as “Sincerely”, or “Best regards”.

Signature: Leave space for your handwritten signature (if submitting a hard copy) and then type your name below it.

How to Write a Cover Letter For a Job in 5 Steps!

Firstly, it’s crucial to streamline the process of crafting a cover letter, but that doesn’t mean using the same cover letter for every job position or even the same position at different companies. Customization is key to standing out.

Step 1. Research the Company- AIPal

Open the job listing you want to apply for, typically found on platforms like LinkedIn or Indeed. These platforms usually provide a detailed job description outlining the requirements and responsibilities.

To begin, I will write a cover letter for the Sales & Marketing Manager position at Pride Mile, which is a remote job listing I found on LinkedIn.

To proceed effectively, I will copy the job description and input it into AIPal to extract key keywords. These keywords are crucial as they highlight the skills and attributes the employer is seeking for the role.

Prompt: Extract keywords from this job description that I can in my cover letter.

To refine your keyword research, you can ask AIPal to extract keywords and categorize them into tiers.

Prompt: Extract keywords from this job description that I can in my cover letter. Assign them in three tiers ranging from the most important to least important.

This way, you'll identify the most critical keywords, which should be emphasized more in your cover letter, and less important keywords, which can be mentioned once or twice.

This approach will give me a comprehensive understanding of what the job entails and what qualities I should emphasize in my cover letter.

Step 2. Choose a template- WPS Office

Choosing a cover letter template is important because it gives you a clear structure to follow, saving you time and ensuring your letter looks polished. It guides you on what information to include, from your skills to your qualifications, making it easier to customize each letter for different job applications. Templates also help keep your letter organized and visually appealing, which is key to making a positive impression on employers.

WPS Office has been a godsend in this regard, offering plenty of cover letter templates. I followed these steps to find the desired cover letter for the Marketing Manager position:

Open WPS Office and click on "New" on the left side pane.

Next, simply click on the “All” tab in the left side pane. This will display numerous templates available on WPS Office for documents, spreadsheets, and presentations.

To save time browsing through all the options, simply search for "cover letter". This filters out irrelevant templates and helps find the right cover letter template for the job post in context.

Upon finding the suitable template for the job post, click on it to preview.

To start customizing the selected template, click the "Download" button at the top right corner, which will launch it in the WPS Writer interface for editing.

Header and Salutation

Headers and salutations are essential in a cover letter for their role in setting a professional tone. The header provides your contact details and the date, ensuring easy communication and formal presentation.

Salutations, like "Dear Hiring Manager," personalize your letter and demonstrate attention to detail, addressing the recipient directly and showcasing professionalism from the start.

One of the standout features of WPS templates is its ready-made header, which enhances the visual appeal of your cover letter. It includes sections for your contact information, the date, and the recipient's details.

Addressing the recipient by name whenever possible adds a personal touch; if that information isn't available, a generic greeting such as "Dear Hiring Manager" remains professional and appropriate. Ensuring the document is error-free further underscores your professionalism and attention to detail.

Step 3. Introduction- Your Opening Sentences

Starting your cover letter with a compelling introduction is crucial. It’s your chance to grab the hiring manager's attention and make a strong first impression. A well-crafted opening should highlight your enthusiasm, showcase your qualifications, and give a hint of your personality.

Here are a few key things to keep in mind to create an engaging and effective cover letter introduction:

Expressing genuine passion for the role or the company can make a strong impact. For example, in a sales manager position:

Dear Mr. Brown, my name is Anna and I’m excited about the opportunity to help your company exceed its sales targets. My five years of experience as a Sales Representative at XYZ Inc. have equipped me with the skills needed to drive results. Last year, we surpassed our KPIs by 50%, and I’m eager to bring this success to your team.

Referrals can add credibility to your application. For instance, in an architectural position:

I was thrilled to learn about this job opportunity from John Doe, who has been with your firm for five years. John and I collaborated on an architectural project for over a year, and he recommended I apply for this role, believing I’d be a great fit.

Demonstrating your knowledge about the company shows dedication. For example, in a social worker position:

I have always admired the work your organization does with vulnerable communities. Your commitment to social justice resonates with my professional values, and I believe my previous experience as a social worker aligns perfectly with your mission.

Starting with a significant accomplishment can immediately capture interest. For example, in a public relations position:

As a Public Relations Representative at Company XYZ, I enhanced the company’s reputation and public image, resulting in a 40% increase in customer satisfaction. I am eager to bring my proven track record of success to your organization as the Head of Communications.

Step 4. Body- the Most Important Part

The body of your resume is where you showcase your qualifications, experience, skills, and achievements to demonstrate why you're the ideal candidate for the job. Structuring this section effectively is crucial to capturing the attention of hiring managers and persuading them to consider you for the position.

Here’s how to craft a compelling resume body:

Start with a Strong Summary or Objective Statement:

Begin your resume with a concise summary or objective that highlights your career goals and what you bring to the table. This helps recruiters quickly understand your professional background and aspirations. For example:

Results-driven marketing professional with 8+ years of experience in digital marketing strategies and campaign management. Proven track record of increasing brand awareness and revenue growth through innovative marketing initiatives. Seeking to leverage my skills and expertise to contribute to the continued success of ABC Company.

Highlight Key Skills:

List relevant skills that align with the job requirements. Use bullet points to make them easy to scan. Focus on both technical skills (e.g., software proficiency, languages) and soft skills (e.g., communication, leadership). For example:

Digital Marketing Strategy

SEO/SEM Optimization

Content Management Systems (CMS)

Social Media Marketing

Analytical Skills

Team Leadership

Add Keywords:

In the body of the cover letter, it's crucial to incorporate keywords extracted from the job description. These keywords highlight your relevant skills, experiences, and attributes that align with what the employer is seeking. For example, if the job description emphasizes "digital marketing strategy," "customer acquisition," and "social media management," your cover letter should showcase your expertise in these areas.

My experience in developing and implementing robust digital marketing strategies, coupled with a proven track record in customer acquisition and social media management, aligns perfectly with the goals outlined for the Sales & Marketing Manager position at Pride Mile.

Detail Your Work Experience:

Include your work history in reverse chronological order, starting with your most recent position. For each job, provide the following details:

Job Title and Company: Clearly state your position and the organization you worked for.

Dates of Employment: Specify the period you worked there.

Key Responsibilities: Outline your main duties and responsibilities in concise bullet points. Focus on achievements and quantify results where possible. For example:

Managed a team of 5 digital marketers to execute SEO and PPC campaigns, resulting in a 30% increase in website traffic and a 25% growth in lead generation.

Achievements: Highlight specific accomplishments that demonstrate your impact. Use metrics to quantify your achievements whenever feasible. For example:

Led a successful rebranding campaign that increased brand recognition by 40% and led to a 15% increase in customer engagement.

Education and Certifications: List your educational background, including degrees, diplomas, and relevant certifications. Mention any honors or awards received. Include the name of the institution, degree/certification earned, and dates attended.

Skills and Expertise: Elaborate on any additional skills or expertise that are relevant to the job. This could include technical skills, industry-specific knowledge, or proficiency in certain tools or methodologies.

Professional Development: Include any professional development activities, workshops, or seminars you have attended that are relevant to your career.

Step 5. Closing & Salutation

A strong conclusion to your cover letter is essential to leave a positive and lasting impression on a prospective employer. It serves as your final opportunity to express enthusiasm, reinforce your qualifications, and prompt the hiring manager to take action. Here’s how to effectively end your cover letter.

Show self-assurance in your skills and how they align with the job requirements. This demonstrates to the employer that you are a competent and enthusiastic candidate. For example:

I am confident that my project management experience and problem-solving abilities make me a perfect fit for your team. I thrive in dynamic environments and am eager to contribute to your company's success.

Let your passion for the role and the industry shine through. Mentioning your enthusiasm can make you a more memorable candidate. For instance:

My lifelong passion for animal welfare drives my dedication to providing top-notch veterinary care. I am excited to bring this passion to your clinic and contribute to the well-being of your patients.

Highlight how your skills and experiences align with the job responsibilities. This helps the employer see the direct benefits of hiring you. For example:

With seven years of experience managing senior accounts, I am skilled at anticipating client needs and handling situations with discretion. I am eager to bring this expertise to your team and help grow your client base.

Share your career aspirations and how they align with the company’s growth. This shows your long-term interest in the organization. For example:

I look forward to leveraging my sales experience to identify new markets and build strong customer relationships. My goal is to grow within your company and eventually lead the account management team.

Align your personal values with the company’s mission to show you’re a cultural fit. For example:

I admire ArcherTech's commitment to supporting local businesses and have innovative marketing ideas to increase profitability in this sector. I am excited to discuss these ideas further.

Emphasize relevant technical skills, especially those mentioned in the job description. This highlights your readiness to contribute effectively. For example:

I bring extensive experience with CAD software and can create integrated 360-degree renderings for client presentations. My past successes in this area can help boost your sales by 150% over the next two quarters.

Encourage the employer to take the next step, such as scheduling an interview. Express gratitude and indicate your eagerness to discuss your application further. For example:

Thank you for considering my application. I look forward to discussing how my skills can contribute to your team. Please feel free to contact me at your convenience.

End your letter with a formal and courteous closing. Suitable options include "Best", "Sincerely", "Respectfully", and "Thank you".

Here's a template for Closing & Salutation:

This is the best approach I can suggest for writing a great cover letter, but I highly recommend using WPS Office templates for this. The AI features in AIPal and WPS Office can help extract keywords and assist with writing, while the templates provide pre-written content tailored to the position you're applying for. This approach minimizes effort and frustration, especially when a job requires a cover letter, ensuring your application meets all necessary requirements effectively.

Use Word, Excel, and PPT for FREE, No Ads.

Edit PDF files with the powerful PDF toolkit.

Microsoft-like interface. Easy to learn. 100% Compatibility.

Boost your productivity with WPS's abundant free Word, Excel, PPT, and CV templates.

How to Proofread your Cover Letter- WPS Office

WPS Office is an all-around solution for various tasks, including writing a cover letter and securing your dream job. Beyond helping you create a polished cover letter, WPS Office also excels in proofreading it. With its AI-powered Proofreader, WPS Office ensures your cover letter is error-free and impactful.

WPS AI: To assist you in polishing your content：

WPS AI Proofreader is an essential tool for perfecting your cover letter with ease and confidence. As you craft your application, WPS AI Proofreader ensures your writing is polished to perfection. It goes beyond simple spell checks, offering real-time error detection for grammar, punctuation, and clarity. This means you can focus on expressing your skills and achievements effectively, without worrying about typos or awkward phrasing. With customizable settings and intuitive correction options, WPS AI Proofreader tailors its suggestions to fit your writing style, ensuring your cover letter maintains professionalism and clarity.

AIPal Chatbot: For ideas and consultation

AIPal is a great web-assistant throughout the process of refining and perfecting your cover letter through its robust proofreading and consultation capabilities. This AI-powered tool not only identifies grammatical errors and punctuation issues but also provides insightful suggestions to enhance the clarity and effectiveness of your ideas. AIPal ensures that your cover letter maintains a cohesive flow and communicates your qualifications effectively to potential employers.

1. How long should a Cover Letter be?

A cover letter should ideally be between half a page and a full page in length, with a word count ranging from 250 to 400 words. It is typically divided into three to six paragraphs. It's important to keep it brief and focused on relevant details.

2. What tone should I use in my Cover Letter?

To effectively convey the right tone in your cover letter, aim for a balance that is both professional and friendly.

Avoid overly formal language while maintaining a polished demeanor.

Tailor your communication style to fit the company's culture, showing genuine enthusiasm for the position without coming across as boastful or overly eager.

Use confident and positive language to articulate your qualifications clearly, avoiding jargon, informal expressions, or humor that could be misinterpreted.

This approach will ensure your cover letter reflects professionalism and authentic interest in the position.

3. Should I include references in my cover letter?

Typically, you do not need to include references in your cover letter unless the employer specifically requires them. Concentrate on highlighting your relevant qualifications and explaining why you are a strong match for the position.

Create An Impactful Cover Letter With WPS Office

Creating a compelling cover letter can often be the decisive factor in securing your dream job. It needs to showcase your expertise clearly and coherently, leaving no doubt about your suitability for the role. WPS Office provides a reliable solution where you can gather all the necessary information for when you are figuring out how to write a cover letter and ensure your cover letter resonates at the right level.

From templates perfectly tailored to the job position to extracting crucial keywords and summarizing job descriptions, WPS Office equips you with everything essential for writing a successful cover letter. Download AIPal today to streamline your job hunting journey and alleviate some of the frustrations along the way.

• 1. The Best Cover Letter Sample for Job Application in Word Format
• 2. Best Free Cover Letter Template for 2024
• 3. How to Write a Cover Letter for Teaching Positions [Tips with Examples]
• 4. How to Write A Formal Letter - Steps with Examples
• 5. Top 10 Best Free Cover Letter Templates in Google Docs for 2024
• 6. How to Use Chat GPT for Cover Letter - Prompt Example & Templates

15 years of office industry experience, tech lover and copywriter. Follow me for product reviews, comparisons, and recommendations for new apps and software.

An Intoxicating 500-Year-Old Mystery

The Voynich Manuscript has long baffled scholars—and attracted cranks and conspiracy theorists. Now a prominent medievalist is taking a new approach to unlocking its secrets.

Listen to more stories on curio

L isa Fagin Davis was starting her medieval-studies Ph.D. at Yale in 1989 when she got a part-time job at the university’s Beinecke Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Her boss was the curator of early books and manuscripts, and he stuck her with an unenviable duty: answering letters from the cranks, conspiracists, and truthers who hounded the library with questions about its most popular holding.

In the library catalog, the book— a parchment codex the size of a hardcover novel —had a simple, colorless title: “Cipher Manuscript.” But newspapers tended to call it the “Voynich Manuscript,” after the rare-books dealer Wilfrid Voynich, who acquired it from a Jesuit collection in Italy around 1912. An heir sold the manuscript to another dealer, who donated it to Yale in 1969.

Explore the September 2024 Issue

Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.

Davis grew up in Oklahoma City, transfixed by the fantasy worlds of J. R. R. Tolkien and Dungeons & Dragons. When the Beinecke curator first showed her the Voynich Manuscript, she thought, This is the coolest thing I’ve ever seen.

Its 234 pages contained some 38,000 words, but not one of them was readable. The book’s unnamed author had written it, likely with a quill pen, in symbols never before seen. Did they represent a natural language, such as Latin? A constructed language, like Esperanto? A secret code? Gibberish? Scholars had no real idea. To Davis, however, the manuscript felt alive with meaning.

Flowering through the indecipherable script were otherworldly illustrations: strange, prehistoric-looking plants with leaves in dreamy geometries; oversize pages that folded out to reveal rosettes, zodiacs, stars, the cosmos; lists of apparent medicinal formulas alongside drawings of herbs and spindly bottles. Most striking of all were the groups of naked women. They held stars on strings, like balloons, or stood in green pools fed by trickling ducts and by pipes that looked like fallopian tubes . Many of the women, arms outstretched, seemed less to be bathing than working, as plumbers in some primordial waterworks.

Although the book’s parchment and pigments looked medieval, the drawings of the women had no close cultural parallel, in any era. Even the plants—which appeared to have the stems of one species and the roots of another—resisted identification.

Davis, then 23 years old, with a rosy sense of the world’s knowability, wanted to figure out what the Voynich Manuscript was, what it meant, where it came from. But people in her field saw the Voynich as a waste of time, a house-of-curiosities gewgaw unworthy of the serious scholar, especially when so many legible manuscripts begged for study.

From the June 2020 issue: Ariel Sabar on a biblical mystery at Oxford

In any case, scholars had already tried. The manuscript had reeled them in with what one cryptanalyst called a “surface appearance of simplicity”: letters that looked glancingly Latin, words that repeated with language-like regularity, handwriting that had the easy flow of a long-established script. But Renaissance-era intellectuals, Ivy League professors, and spy-agency code breakers—including William Friedman, who cracked Japan’s World War II “Purple” cipher before becoming the National Security Agency’s chief cryptographer—all toiled in vain to unlock the Voynich’s secrets. So many headline-making “solutions” had been debunked over the years that the text had earned a reputation, in the words of a Beinecke librarian, as “the place where academic careers go to die.”

Read: “Pure poison” for a scholarly career

For all anyone knew, the manuscript was nothing more than the ravings of a lunatic, or a hoax to dupe some fool into paying a fortune for it. In his magisterial history of code breaking , the writer David Kahn called the Voynich “the longest, the best known, the most tantalizing, the most heavily attacked, the most resistant” of cryptographic puzzles. H. P. Kraus, the dealer who donated the manuscript to Yale, once likened it to the mythical Sphinx, “its lair strewn with the bones of those who failed to solve the riddle, and still awaiting the Oedipus who will give the right answer.”

To the aspirants who wrote to the Beinecke, Davis sent minimalist replies: prints, from microfilm, of whatever pages they requested, without comment. The Beinecke got more than enough attention from unstable-seeming “Voynich people.” Davis was careful not to encourage them, or to betray her own fascination. When she began checking out books on the manuscript—to feed her own curiosity—she didn’t tell her boss, a medievalist who would soon become her dissertation adviser. “What I wanted more than anything,” she told me, “was for him to respect me.” But the further along she got in graduate school, the less she thought about the Voynich, until she scarcely thought of it at all. If her field saw the manuscript as beneath its dignity, then perhaps she should too.

I met Davis in Boston this past March, some 35 years after her youthful infatuation with the manuscript. She had risen to one of her discipline’s most visible posts: executive director of the Medieval Academy of America, the premier professional organization for North American medievalists, which she has led for more than a decade. Its offices are a 20-minute walk from her penthouse condo, where she lives with her husband, Dan Davis, a finance executive. Their balcony overlooks Boston Harbor and the meeting of the Charles and Mystic Rivers, with Old North Church in the distance.

Davis, 58, has the air of the college roommate you could spend hours staring at the stars with, casually unraveling the meaning of the universe. She has a cascade of dark corkscrew curls, and wears purple-lensed glasses—indoors and out—that “pretty much everyone,” she said, mistakes for an affectation. In fact, she has a rare disorder that causes double vision, and the tinted lenses stabilize her sight. Eventually, “I’ll just start wearing an eye patch,” she said, and “go the pirate route.”

My visit came after an unexpected turn of events. The Voynich Manuscript had reentered Davis’s life, forcing her to reconsider almost everything she thought she knew about it. The manuscript’s notoriety—as history’s hardest puzzle; as grist for unhinged conspiracies—had for many years scared scholars away. But what if you looked past its extravagant strangeness? What if you focused instead on the things—little noticed—that it shared with countless other manuscripts?

Could the ordinary illuminate the extraordinary? Davis resolved to find out.

The youngest of three siblings, and the only girl, Davis grew up in a home suffused with serendipitous discovery. Floor tiles in the family room doubled as a chessboard. Posters designed by her mother, a poet, took common exclamations, such as “Good God,” and split them (“Good / God”) to inspire alternative readings.

When Davis wasn’t singing in school musicals—her star turn was as Annie Oakley in Annie Get Your Gun —she buried herself in the Lord of the Rings trilogy and recited poems in Tolkien’s Elvish. She loved the backstories that Tolkien created for his made-up languages. “The invention of languages is the foundation,” Tolkien once wrote. “The ‘stories’ were made rather to provide a world for the languages than the reverse.”

Girls in Davis’s middle school didn’t tend to share these interests. When her geeky older brothers played Dungeons & Dragons, she waitressed their games, as “the beer wench.” At 13, “I was like, ‘Screw this,’ ” she recalled. She got her own dungeon, and led adventures for a group of fellow eighth graders, all boys.

During college, at Brown, she spent a summer singing show tunes on dinner cruises in Boston Harbor. She’d hoped to become a professional actress. But after struggling to land roles in college plays, she took classes on the history of theater, where she found herself drawn to medieval drama—which fused her childhood interests. She majored in medieval studies, and in a senior-year class, she ran her fingers across medieval parchment for the first time. I’m touching something that somebody touched 800 years ago , she thought. The connection felt immediate, she told me, and “magical and really powerful.”

At Yale, Davis answered letters to the library about the Voynich, but she abandoned her own research on it. She had failed to hook even her own brother. Barry Fagin, then a young computer-engineering professor at Dartmouth, had a background in cryptology but gave up on the Voynich after a few tries. “You can beat your head against these kinds of problems for years,” he told me, “and then you wake up one morning and you find you’ve wasted your life.”

Davis’s boss at the Beinecke introduced her to a 12th-century liturgical manuscript known as the Gottschalk Antiphonary, and Davis wrote her dissertation on it. The Gottschalk was the sort of text—Latin, Christian, European—on which medievalists built respectable careers. Davis earned her Ph.D. in 1993 and became a sought-after consultant, cataloging medieval manuscripts for some of the country’s top collections and compiling, with her colleague Melissa Conway, the definitive directory of such manuscripts in North America, a project Davis chronicled on her blog, Manuscript Road Trip.

Then, in 2014, the Medieval Academy of America hired her as its executive director. She became the public face of a field that wanted little to do with the Voynich. But the Voynich wasn’t done with her.

When Davis opened her email in February 2016, the message from Yale University Press surprised her. It asked if she would peer-review the essays in a forthcoming “facsimile edition” of the Voynich Manuscript, a coffee-table book that featured high-resolution, life-size images of every one of its pages.

The Beinecke’s then-director, Edwin C. Schroeder, had grown frustrated by the constant questions his staff got about the Voynich: Its popularity, he told me, was “orders of magnitude” greater than anything else at the library. The Beinecke—a marble-paned building somewhere between modernist cathedral and spaceship—held more than 1 million genuinely meaningful texts, among them a Shakespeare First Folio, a Gutenberg Bible, the papers of Edith Wharton, and a third-century fragment of a Pauline Epistle.

But sometimes it felt as if the only text that visitors cared about was the one nobody could read. And too often, the way they cared about it was to proclaim that they’d solved it. “Part of the challenge,” Schroeder told me, “was that people were regularly contacting us saying, ‘Here’s my theory, what’s my reward?’ ” The Beinecke didn’t offer rewards, the librarians would have to explain, and it didn’t judge theories. But with little rigorous scholarship to point people to, wild ideas bloomed.

A New Jersey doctor argued that the Voynich was a manual, in Flemish creole, of death rites for an ancient cult of Isis. A Texas chemist spied what she took to be the signature of Leonardo da Vinci. The author of a guide to the end of the world theorized that a “Semite” had written the Voynich in scrambled Hebrew, to record a message from extraterrestrials about “our future doom.” A man writing from jail believed that the manuscript was a childhood project of his from the 1980s, written in his own blood. “He kept telling us he was coming to get it,” a Yale official told me. (The library contacted the campus police.)

The manuscript’s unintelligibility had made it a blank screen, onto which people freely projected their own fantasies. When Beinecke officials permitted one self-proclaimed scholar to examine the Voynich—only to see a social-media post afterward about her conducting some sort of séance—“it was like, ‘All right,’ ” Schroeder recalled, “ ‘we need to change some of the conversation.’ ”

Schroeder hoped that a high-quality reproduction, surrounded by accessible essays, would shift interest away from “Break the code!” and toward questions of history. Who might have produced such a work, and why? What do the drawings reveal about the illustrator’s understanding of botany, astronomy, and biology? What kinds of knowledge did earlier cultures encrypt, and how did they do it?

In its email asking Davis to vet the book before publication, the Yale press wrote, “We know that you are an expert in the subject.” That was news to Davis. True, while blogging about the Beinecke a year earlier, she had written a jokey post on the Voynich , warning readers about the “dark scary corner of the internet” where the manuscript’s obsessives lurked. But since leaving graduate school and her Beinecke job more than two decades earlier, she had rarely given it a thought, much less studied it.

But when she read the essays, she felt her broader training as a medievalist kick in. The book treated the Voynich not as some alien vessel of dangerous secrets, but as any other historical manuscript with a physical reality and a past. The volume’s editor was the Beinecke’s new early-books-and-manuscripts curator, a historian named Raymond Clemens. Times had changed.

One essay told of how Wilfrid Voynich remade himself from a Polish revolutionary into a charming New York antiquarian. Another documented the Voynich’s suspected provenance, with evidence suggesting that the manuscript had been owned by the 16th-century Holy Roman Emperor Rudolf II before passing through the hands of a court pharmacist, a Prague alchemist, a Bohemian doctor, and a German polymath on its way to the Jesuits in Italy. There were reports on recent radiocarbon tests dating the calfskin parchment to between 1404 and 1438, and on the University of Pennsylvania philosopher William Romaine Newbold, who in 1921 became the first of many Voynich theorists to succumb to grandiose delusions of having solved it. Newbold’s code-breaking key involved so many freewheeling steps that one could make the text say practically anything. Newbold was convinced that the wily 13th-century friar Roger Bacon had not only written the manuscript but illustrated it with things—the Andromeda galaxy, spermatozoa—that he’d glimpsed through a telescope or microscope hundreds of years before those instruments were thought to have been invented.

Davis’s response to Yale University Press was a rave. The existing Voynich literature contained so much “unscientific and unsupported rubbish” that people couldn’t tell fact from fiction, she wrote. A book of sound, citable research was “long-overdue.”

Titled The Voynich Manuscript and priced at $50, the book would sell some 55,000 copies. (“For a rare-book library, that’s best-seller land,” Schroeder told me.) But if the Beinecke’s leaders thought it would change the conversation or slow the influx of questions, they had miscalculated. The ranks of enthusiasts—or “Voynicheros,” as they’re sometimes called—appeared only to grow. Over the next few years, new theories spread from the internet into the pages of venerable publications.

In 2017, the Times Literary Supplement ran a cover story titled simply “Voynich Manuscript: The Solution,” by the author of a book on how to write and sell TV screenplays. The man, who said he had a “commission from a television production company to analyse the illustrations of the Voynich manuscript,” announced that each character represented an abbreviated Latin word. The text, he argued, was a health manual , complete with recipes, for “the more well to do women in society.”

Read: Has the Voynich manuscript really been solved?

The next year, a headline in The Times of Israel declared, “Scientists Claim to Crack an Elusive Centuries-Old Code—And It’s Hebrew.” The article cited a study by a pair of non-Hebrew-speaking computer scientists who claimed that the Voynich’s author used anagrams and an alphabetic-substitution cipher, even though the resulting “Hebrew” made almost no sense.

Around the same time, a Canadian civil engineer concluded that the Voynich was a Tibetan Bible, while a Russian electrical engineer glimpsed an algorithm, according to one news report, “for conducting a ritual that protected women from sexual violence by vampires.”

Committed to its no-comment policy, the Beinecke started referring Voynich theorists—and the reporters who covered them—to Davis. Again the library was sending her its Voynich headaches, much as it had some 25 years earlier, when she was a student-worker there.

This time, however, Davis had the stature, and the freedom, to tell people what she really thought.

In May 2019, the University of Bristol issued an eye-catching news release: A biological scientist named Gerard Cheshire had used “lateral thinking and ingenuity” to identify the Voynich’s language (“proto-Romance,” he termed it). It had taken him, he said, just two weeks. “I experienced a series of ‘eureka’ moments whilst deciphering the code, followed by a sense of disbelief and excitement when I realised the magnitude of the achievement.” He concluded that Dominican nuns had compiled the manuscript as a medical and astrological reference for Maria of Castile, a great-aunt of King Henry VIII’s first wife.

The manuscript, Cheshire wrote, was “dominated by female issues, activities and adventures” because the men in Maria’s castle were off to battle, “leaving the women and girls sexually and emotionally frustrated, so they amused and distracted themselves whilst they waited and yearned for male attention to return.”

Cheshire had written to Davis more than a year before the news release, asking if she could help him publish his paper. “You may indeed be on to something,” Davis had replied politely. But in careful, line-by-line notes, she identified what she saw as significant errors in his logic, methods, and history.

Like so many others, she thought, he had pronounced a solution and then produced evidence for it, rather than working open-mindedly from facts to theory. At best, his ideas were a “hypothesis,” she told him; they weren’t a solution.

But Davis had found that most Voynicheros didn’t want nuanced critique; they wanted blanket affirmation—or, as Davis put it one morning as we walked to her office in downtown Boston, “Oh my God! You did it! Here’s a cookie!” When she quibbled with a man who’d argued that some of the Voynich’s letterforms represented dance choreography, he retorted, “Now I understand what Galileo must have gone through.” Cheshire grew similarly hostile after failing to convert Davis. “Try to shake off the Voynich spell,” he wrote to her. “I don’t want you to lose face when the penny eventually drops.”

When the University of Bristol announced Cheshire’s solution, it generated credulous headlines, in part because a peer-reviewed journal had published his article. Davis, stunned, slammed it in the media and on Twitter : “Sorry, folks, ‘proto-Romance language’ is not a thing. This is just more aspirational, circular, self-fulfilling nonsense.”

An attack by the head of the Medieval Academy was no small matter. The University of Bristol deleted its news release, distanced itself from Cheshire’s paper, and issued a statement saying that “following media coverage, concerns have been raised about the validity of this research.” Cheshire defended his work as ahead of its time, but the university’s about-face made international news.

Davis was imposing a reputational cost on what she saw as bad Voynich research. She tweeted about the manuscript more than 100 times in 2019. Her posts—some whimsical, others cutting—swelled her Twitter following from a few hundred to more than 10,000.

Her frustrations boiled over in an August 2019 op-ed she wrote for The Washington Post . “We watch ‘Game of Thrones,’ we read ‘Lord of the Rings,’ we play medieval-themed video games, and therefore we think we know something about the Middle Ages,” she wrote. The fantasies that pass for medieval history in popular culture had come for the Voynich, fueling media coverage of shoddy research and “turning an authentic and fascinating medieval manuscript into a caricature of itself.”

But after a couple of years, Davis developed second thoughts about her social-media smackdowns. It was less the hate mail she got from “Voynich bros,” as she called the men who dominated online forums—though that didn’t help. She’d just begun to feel unkind, as though she were punching down at people genuinely inspired by the manuscript’s mysteries. Hadn’t she once been one of them? Her regrets grew after a YouTube channel produced a video of failed Voynich solutions that identified her as “executive director of the Medieval Academy of America and Reigning Queen of Academic Burns.”

If she wanted to dignify the manuscript as worthy of serious scholarship, she realized, she would need to be more than just a critic.

Late in the summer of 2018, an announcement went out about the following year’s International Congress on Medieval Studies: Organizers were soliciting papers for a panel on ciphers, scripts, and shorthands. When Davis replied with a proposal on the Voynich, “it just wasn’t what I was expecting,” Carson Koepke, one of the panel’s organizers, told me. “If it was somebody of a lower caliber than Lisa, I think we would have been much more skeptical.” But Davis was known for painstaking scholarship, and her proposal was accepted.

Davis knew well the Voynich’s reputation as a career killer. But she’d reached a point in her own career where she felt that she could take the risk. Still, she chose to be cautious. Neither a linguist nor a cryptanalyst, she would make no attempt to decode it, she decided. She would instead confine her study to her deepest specializations.

Davis is an elected member of the Comité International de Paléographie Latine, a prestigious guild of the world’s top paleographers and codicologists—experts in, by turns, ancient handwriting and the physical properties of old books. Of the Paris-based society’s 67 members, Davis is one of only four to be admitted from the United States.

She had never conducted a paleographic study of an illegible manuscript, and she wasn’t sure at first that she could. She couldn’t use the Voynich’s handwriting style to place or date it, because there was nothing in history to compare it to. Nor could she avail herself of the most basic paleographic skill: making sense of a scribe’s letterforms, abbreviations, and punctuation—the skill, that is, of reading. How could you read something whose alphabet lacked any known precedent?

That left a single, slim line of attack: counting the manuscript’s hands. Even if a language was unreadable, a good paleographer could spot small, stylistic tells distinguishing one scribe from the next.

Did one person create the Voynich? At first glance, it seemed so: “The handwriting is incredibly consistent throughout,” a onetime Army code breaker had observed in 1946. If the language existed in a kind of vacuum, beyond history’s reach, logic suggested that its creator did too: a hoaxer working furtively in a private office or some lone genius in an attic, disgorging bizarro visions onto parchment by candlelight.

But as Davis magnified the handwriting, she noticed subtle variations. In certain places, the script was more cramped or more likely to slant as it crossed the page. She tested this observation by picking a letter that didn’t appear often and tracking it across the manuscript’s pages. Its style, she saw, varied among groups of pages but not within those groups. This suggested that the differences—larger or smaller loops, straighter or curvier crossbars, longer or shorter feet—were the product of different scribes rather than of one scribe writing the same letter in different ways.

To reduce the possibility of selection bias, Davis examined other letters and found that their styles shifted in lockstep with the first letter. After months of analysis, she concluded that even if the Voynich had a single guiding vision, it was the handiwork of five different scribes.

The book’s physical condition filled in more of the picture. Even before anyone wrote on it, the calfskin parchment had holes where scabs, wounds, or insects had stricken the animal it had come from—one of several signs that the manuscript’s makers couldn’t afford, or didn’t need, the finest materials. The pigments were ordinary, and luxuries, such as gold leaf, were wholly absent. Stains darkened the tops of the manuscript’s first 100-odd pages, from an apparent water spill. Beneath Davis’s fingers, the parchment felt soft, almost cloth-like, a familiar texture in books that were once heavily thumbed. “This is not a manuscript that was meant to be a precious object on a book stand for people to go, ‘Ooooh,’ ” Davis told me. Like a manual of anatomy or an almanac of the stars, it was meant to be flipped through and used.

Davis presented her findings at the medieval-studies conference and published them in 2020 in the journal Manuscript Studies . She had hardly solved the Voynich, but she’d opened it to new kinds of investigation. If five scribes had come together to write it, the manuscript was probably the work of a community, rather than of a single deranged mind or con artist. Why the community used its own language, or code, remains a mystery. Whether it was a cloister of alchemists, or mad monks, or a group like the medieval Béguines—a secluded order of Christian women—required more study. But the marks of frequent use signaled that the manuscript served some routine, perhaps daily function.

Davis’s work brought like-minded scholars out of hiding. In just the past few years, a Yale linguist named Claire Bowern had begun performing sophisticated analyses of the text, building on the efforts of earlier scholars and on methods Bowern had used with undocumented Indigenous languages in Australia. At the University of Malta, computer scientists were figuring out how to analyze the Voynich with tools for natural-language processing. Researchers found that the manuscript’s roughly 38,000 words—and 9,000-word vocabulary—had many of the statistical hallmarks of actual language. The Voynich’s most common word, whatever it meant, appeared roughly twice as often as the second-most-common word and three times as often as the third-commonest, and so on—a touchstone of natural language known as Zipf’s law. The mix of word lengths and the ratio of unique words to total words were similarly language-like. Certain words, moreover, seemed to follow one another in predictable order, a possible sign of grammar.

Finally, each of the text’s sections —as defined by the drawings of plants, stars, bathing women, and so on—had different sets of overrepresented words, just as one would expect in a real book whose chapters focused on different subjects.

Spelling was the chief aberration. The Voynich alphabet—if that’s what it was—appeared to have a conventional 20-odd letters. But compared with known languages, too many of those letters repeated in the same order, both within words and across neighboring words, like a children’s rhyme. In some places, the spellings of adjacent words so converged that a single word repeated two or three times in a row. A rough English equivalent might be something akin to “She sells sea shells by the sea shore.” Another possibility, Bowern told me, was something like pig Latin, or the Yiddishism—known as “shm-reduplication”—that begets phrases such as fancy shmancy and rules shmules .

No known cipher—certainly none from the early 1400s—could produce the Voynich’s overly repetitive letter sequences and its language-like word and letter frequencies. To pull off something similar in English, Bowern and a graduate student found, you’d have to do strange things, like replace all the vowels in a word with a single, catchall character; or anagram the letters of each word into alphabetical order; or lard the text, in some yet-to-be-determined fashion, with nonsense characters, or “nulls.”

But if Voynichese was some reclusive group’s invention, why would its scribes take the extra step of scrambling its letters? Why riddle a puzzle? And yet that’s what the Voynich did, over and over again. The moment you felt you were getting somewhere, it coiled in on itself, retreating from your grasp, into another disguise.

This shape-shifting—this inability to see it from any one angle—persuaded the Malta computer scientists, led by Colin Layfield, to assemble a multidisciplinary team. So little was known about the underlying language—if it was a language—that even artificial intelligence, in its current state, lacked the models to decode it. Good AI requires “massive amounts of data to learn from,” Layfield told me. “We simply don’t have that luxury with the text in the Voynich.” In 2021, Layfield recruited Davis, Bowern, and other specialists, and they began meeting online to develop ideas for collaboration. In late 2022, the Voynich Research Group, as it became known, held its first conference, with 16 peer-reviewed papers , touching on history, literature, paleography, linguistics, cryptology, and—because of some of the drawings—medieval gynecology. Davis was invited to give the closing keynote.

Scholars inside and outside the group are now pressing in a variety of directions. Some are using mathematical tools to hunt for “cribs”: words whose meanings can be inferred because they consistently appear, like labels, beside certain illustrated objects.

Others are reevaluating the alphabets that earlier scholars created to convert the Voynichese letterforms into machine-readable ASCII text—the raw data for computational studies of the language. AI might be unable to decrypt the Voynich, but it could contribute in other ways, once enough of the world’s hundreds of thousands of medieval manuscripts are digitally imaged and accessible. Models trained on those images may eventually develop the power to spot visual similarities to the Voynich—the curvature of a particular pen stroke, the shades of certain pigments—that have eluded the human eye. Those similarities could help scholars identify writing communities with possible ties to the Voynich.

Still conspicuously missing from the research are professional art historians. Scholars of medieval art could bring a whole new field to bear on the Voynich’s illustrated world, but like other medievalists, they have been reluctant to engage.

In a 2020 article in the journal Cryptologia , a pair of European scientists argued that someone could have used a simple formula to give strings of meaningless symbols the structure of language. The Voynich, in their view, is little more than artfully constructed nonsense. But Davis has come to believe that the manuscript has meaning, and that scholars will one day find it. She thinks that an individual is less likely to hit on the solution than a cross-disciplinary team, whose members will turn small, hard-won discoveries into a coherent picture. “A lot of people try to make the argument that surely it would have been read by now if it could be read,” she told me. “But that’s just not enough of a reason to give up hope.” Egypt’s hieroglyphs and the Mycenaean script known as Linear B were also notoriously indecipherable—until the Rosetta Stone and a British genius produced working keys.

But what if the Voynich remains unsolvable? What if the manuscript is in some sense smarter than us all, its anonymous author, or authors, laughing from the grave at the hubris of reason? When I posed these questions to one of Bowern’s graduate students, she recited a Robert Frost poem about all human quests for understanding: “We dance round in a ring and suppose, / But the Secret sits in the middle and knows.”

On a sunny day this past April, I walked into the Beinecke with Davis and Bowern and descended the steps to a basement classroom, where a librarian had set the Voynich on a pillow that keeps stresses off the book’s old body. It was open to a page where a block of inscrutable text is pierced by a plant with leaves that resemble origami frogs.

Bowern teaches an undergraduate Yale linguistics class on the Voynich, and today was her students’ one chance to see it in the flesh. Hands clasped behind their back, many of them leaned gingerly toward its open pages, as if in the presence of something sublime.

From the December 2021 issue: Inside the Manhattan DA’s Antiquities Trafficking Unit

At times Davis, too, still feels the tug of the manuscript’s ineffable magic. But today she had come from Boston to ground Bowern’s students in its hard, physical facts: the parchment thumbed to the softness of felt. The blotches where some ancient reader may have spilled her water jug. The ellipsis of pinpricks where someone with needle and thread had tried, long ago, and without success, to mend one of the parchment’s many holes.

A year earlier, while lecturing at a different college, Davis had fielded a question about what made the Voynich “so sensational.” Was it that some band of medieval women might have come together to preserve their secrets? Was it the text’s spirituality, or the possibility that it said something about the Holy Grail or the Living Water?

Davis gently steered her questioner away from speculation. The Voynich is “not imaginary,” Davis said. “It’s an actual object, it exists in space and time, it has a history, it has physical characteristics, and because of that, it has a true story. We just don’t know what that true story is yet.”

This article appears in the September 2024 print edition with the headline “An Intoxicating 500-Year-Old Mystery.”

​When you buy a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.

About the Author

More Stories

The ‘Secret’ Gospel and a Scandalous New Episode in the Life of Jesus

The Billion-Dollar Ponzi Scheme That Hooked Warren Buffett and the U.S. Treasury