Key Paper Evaluation: Expert Review

A guide for authors submitting to the Expert Collection

expert-review-logoScope: Key Paper Evaluations review significant, recently published original research articles carefully selected and assessed by specialists in the field (not a paper from the author’s own group). The original research detailed in the chosen paper is discussed with the aim of keeping readers informed of the most promising discoveries/breakthroughs relevant to the subject of the journal through review and comment from experts.

Aim: Key Paper Evaluations are intended to extend and expand on the information presented, putting it in context and explaining why it is of importance. The ideal article will provide both a critical evaluation and the author’s opinion on the quality and novelty of the information disclosed.

Word limit: The word limit for Key Paper Evaluations is 1,000-1,500 words (not including summary, keywords and references).

Every article must contain:

Title: Should be concise but informative, including the drug and therapeutic indication. Titles should not contain brand names

Authors’ names and addresses: Including address, academic qualifications and job titles of all authors, as well as telephone number, fax number and email address of the author for correspondence on a separate cover sheet as the peer reviewers will be blinded to the authors’ identity. Please note that only the address of the first author of the article will appear on Medline/PubMed, not necessarily the corresponding author.

Summary (maximum 150 words): The role of the summary is to draw in the interested casual browser. This should not be an abstract but should outline the article scope and briefly put it into context. No references should be cited in the summary.

Keywords: A brief list of keywords, in alphabetical order, is required to assist indexers in cross-referencing. The keywords will encompass the therapeutic area, mechanism(s) of action, key compounds etc.

Body of the evaluation:

  • Summary of methods and results
  • Discussion

Five-year view: Authors are challenged to include a speculative viewpoint on how the field will have evolved five years from the point at which the review was written.

Key issues: An executive summary of the authors’ main points (bulleted) is very useful for time-constrained readers requiring a rapidly accessible overview.

References: A maximum of 20 references is permitted.

Reference annotations: Important references should be highlighted with a one/two star system and brief annotations should be given (see the journal’s Instructions for Authors page for examples and for a more detailed description of our referencing style).

Figures and tables: If necessary; only one of each is permitted. For further information on tables and figures, please see our formatting guide.

Financial disclosure and acknowledgements