A guide for authors submitting to the Expert Collection
Perspectives have the same basic structure and length as review articles, however, they should be more speculative and very forward looking, even visionary. They offer the author the opportunity to present criticism or address controversy. Authors of perspectives are encouraged to be highly opinionated. The intention is very much that these articles should represent a personal perspective.
Referees will be briefed to review these articles for quality and relevance of argument only. They will not necessarily be expected to agree with the authors’ sentiments.
The word limit for perspectives is 7,000 words (not including figures, tables or references).
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 abstract structure is followed for full-length perspective 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.
References must not be included in the abstract.
Incorporating basic background information on the area under review.
Body of the review perspective paper covering the subject under review, using numbered subsections.
The conclusion for all articles should contain a brief summary of the data presented in the article. Please note that this section is meant to be distinct from, and appear before the ‘Expert Opinion’ section.
To distinguish the articles published in the Expert Collection, authors must provide an additional section entitled ‘Expert Opinion’. This section affords authors the opportunity to provide their interpretation of the data presented in the article and 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. The intention is to go beyond a conclusion and should not simply summarize the paper.
Authors should answer the following:
1. How could the advances or research being discussed impact real world outcomes (diagnosis, treatment guidelines, effectiveness, economics, drug utilization etc.)? Can changes be realistically implemented into clinical/research practice? What is preventing adoption in clinical practice?
2. What are the key areas for improvement in the area being discussed and how can current problems and limitations be solved? Are there any technical, technological, or methodical limitations that prevent research from advancing as it could?
3. What potential does further research hold? Is there a definitive end-point?
4. Does the future of study lie in this area? Are there other more promising areas in the field which could be progressed?
5. How will the field evolve in the future? In your perspective, what will the standard procedure have gained or lost from the current norm in five or ten years?
At the end of the Expert Opinion section, 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.
Reference to unpublished data should be kept to a minimum and authors must obtain a signed letter of permission from cited persons to use unpublished results or personal communications in the manuscript.
Permission to reproduce previously published figures should be sought in writing by the authors, preferably prior to submission, and any permission documentation (licences, written approval etc.) should be uploaded alongside the manuscript.