Technology Evaluation

A guide for authors submitting to the Expert Collection


Expert Opinion articles have been engineered specifically for the online environment. The manuscript structure is designed to draw the time-constrained reader directly to the information they require.

The aim of a Technology Evaluation is to provide a concise review of the design, basic technology, clinical use, and future potential of a specific novel or emerging drug delivery device/application/technology platform with strong scientific evidence in the primary literature.

The following list includes examples of topics that can be covered for various indications:

  • Pulmonary drug delivery

  • Ocular drug delivery

  • Buccal drug delivery

  • Sublingual drug delivery

  • Oral drug delivery

  • Nasal drug delivery

  • Vaginal/anal drug delivery

  • Injectable drug delivery

  • Topical drug delivery

  • Drug/device combination drug delivery

  • Novel and emerging routes of delivery

Explore the Expert Collection

Discover all Expert Collection, journal specific guidelines.


The primary focus of the article should be clinically focused and may include post-marketing findings for the device. Using the literature reviewed, the authors are encouraged to provide a critical appraisal of the most important and up-to-date information and discuss how the technology is likely to impact on the clinical management/treatment of specific diseases.

Authors should focus their discussion primarily to the indication described in the article title, but other indications may be discussed as well. It is recommended that national/regional regulatory product guidelines are followed, particularly in terms of indications and dosage. When a device/application/technology is discussed outside of its approved license, readers should be made aware of this fact in the first instance.


The audience for the Expert Collection series consists of clinicians, academics, research scientists, decision-makers and a range of professionals in the biomedical, pharmaceutical, and healthcare community. Authors should bear in mind the multidisciplinary status of the readership when writing the article.

Word limit

The word limit for Technology Evaluations is 3,000-5,000 words (not including figures, tables and references).


Several factors contribute to the selection of devices and technologies 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. So, timing is critical, and it is important that the deadlines set by the Commissioning Editor are met. However, if 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

Should be concise but informative, including the device/application/technology and therapeutic indication.

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.

Maximum 200 words.  

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.

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 components etc.

Incorporating basic information on disease incidence and prevalence, unmet medical need and present treatment guidelines (highlighting regional variations where appropriate).

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


Overview of the market
What are the unmet needs of currently available devices/applications/technologies?
Specific populations the device/application/technology may be used for (e.g. elderly, pediatric populations etc.)

Introduction to the device/application/technology
How the device/application/technology works
Cost-effectiveness (training, waste disposal, equipment required…)
Performance standards
Safety and complications

Clinical profile and post-marketing findings
Data from pre-FDA approval studies
Data from post-FDA approval studies (if approved)
Include a table summarizing ongoing and completed clinical trials of the device/application/technology

Alternative devices
A standalone box, summarizing competing technologies in the field

A short summary of the data presented in the review.

500-1000 words (included in overall word count).

To distinguish articles published in the series of journals, authors must provide an additional section entitled Expert opinion. 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 device has over currently available therapies and how likely physicians are to convert to treatment with the device.

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.

Authors are also challenged to include a speculative viewpoint on how the field will have evolved 5 years from the point at which the review was written.

A maximum of 100 references is suggested. Ensure that all key work relevant to the topic under discussion is cited in the text and listed in the bibliography. 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.

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).

Up to five figures and five tables are permitted. For further information on tables and figures, please see our formatting guide.

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