A guide for authors submitting to the Expert Collection
Expert Review articles have been engineered specifically for the online environment. The structure is designed to draw the time-constrained reader directly to the information they require. Three features in particular contribute to the unique value of Expert Review articles:
The aim of a Drug Profile is to provide a concise review of the pharmacology, clinical efficacy and tolerability of a drug. Authors are encouraged to provide a critical appraisal of the most important and up-to-date information and provide their own viewpoint on the role of the drug in clinical practice.
Explore the Expert Collection
Discover all Expert Collection, journal specific guidelines.
Authors should restrict their discussion to licensed indications and it is recommended that national/regional regulatory product guidelines are followed, particularly in terms of indications and dosage. When a drug is discussed outside of its approved license, readers should be made aware of this fact in the first instance.
For investigational drugs not yet licensed for any indication, the manuscript should make reference to this from the outset.
The audience for the Expert Review series consists of clinicians, research scientists, decision-makers and a range of professionals in the healthcare community. Authors should bear in mind the multidisciplinary status of the readership when writing the article.
The word limit for Drug Profiles is 3,000-7,000 words (not including tables, figures and references).
Several factors contribute to the selection of drugs to be reviewed, including scientific need, emergence of new important clinical data, market launches, approval of new indications, and the requirement for an alternative appraisal of the literature. Timing is critical and it is important that the deadlines set by the Commissioning Editor are met. However, if you feel there is a need to delay publication, for instance to discuss new data presented at a scientific meeting or to coincide with the publication of primary literature, the Commissioning Editor will be happy to accommodate such requests.
Every article must contain
Please note that only the address of the first author of the article will appear on Medline/PubMed, not necessarily the corresponding author.
The aim of the abstract is to draw in the interested reader and provide an accurate reflection of the content of the paper. We therefore request the following structure is followed for full-length review articles:
Introduction: Authors are required to describe the significance of the topic under discussion.
Areas covered: Authors are required to describe the research discussed and the literature search undertaken.
Expert opinion: The author’s expert view on the current status of the field under discussion.
Incorporating basic information on disease incidence and prevalence, unmet medical need and present treatment guidelines (highlighting regional variations where appropriate).
Overview of the market: What are the unmet needs of currently available therapies?
Which competitor compounds/classes of compounds are in the clinic/late development?
Introduction to the drug:
Pharmacokinetics and metabolism
(Phase I studies)
Phase II studies
Summary table of Phase I and II trial results
Phase III studies
Summary table of Phase III trial results
Safety and tolerability, including a table summarizing safety outcomes in clinical trials, and a table comparing the characteristics of the drug with its competitors.
Include information on the status of the drug, i.e., where it is currently approved, in which countries it is approved and for what indications. This should cover Europe, US and rest of the world where appropriate.
An analysis of the data presented in the review.
This section affords authors the opportunity to go beyond the conclusion and provide their interpretation of the data presented in the article, discussing any improvements the drug has over currently available therapies and how likely physicians are to convert to treatment with the drug. In addition there is the opportunity to discuss the developments that are likely to be important in the future and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results (i.e. what are the prospects for combination therapies?).
Authors are also challenged to include a speculative viewpoint on how the field will have evolved five years from the point at which the review was written.