Resources & Publications   Neurocritical Care Journal   Reviewer and Author Info

Reviewer and Author Info

Interested in submitting an article for the Neurocritical Care journal? Learn more about our submission guidelines and follow the instructions below.

Instructions for Authors

Jump to:

Overview of the submission process

Manuscripts must be submitted through the publisher's online manuscript system Editorial Manager® that manages the entire workflow of all manuscripts. Careful attention to the submission process is critical. Editorial Manager supports a wide range of submission file formats. For manuscripts, use of Microsoft Word is preferred and will make submission easier. WordPerfect, RTF, TXT, and LaTex are also acceptable. For figures, use TIFF, GIF, JPEG, EPS, PPT, or Postscript. PDF is not acceptable.

Download Full Instructions

For Questions related to manuscript submission or preparation:

For Questions related to Neurocritical Care publication:

All manuscripts undergo review. An initial review is conducted in the editorial office to ensure that all manuscripts comply with the Instructions for Authors. The editorial team performs an initial evaluation to determine which papers will be sent for peer review. Papers not sent out for review will be declined and referred to the Springer Transfer Desk which simplifies and shortens the process of resubmitting the manuscript to a different journal.

The following separate files are needed for the submission process:

  1. Cover letter
  2. Manuscript file that includes the title page, details page and abstract (Word format preferred)
  3. Separate files for each table and figure
  4. Comments to the editorial staff (if any)
  5. Supplemental Files (optional)

To submit: Go to http://www.editorialmanager.com/neca/default.aspx and Log in as an author

You will be asked to complete the following steps:

  1. Begin submission with selection of an article type
  2. Upload your manuscript, preferably as a Word file. If you use a Word file, the system will attempt to pull out title, abstract, and author information, which you will be asked to verify.
  3. Select Classifications (used to match the manuscript with appropriate reviewers)
  4. Enter Author contributions (may be copied from manuscript file)
  5. Indicate if IRB approval was obtained, if applicable
  6. Provide clinical trial registration number, if applicable
  7. Provide any additional comments, if desired
  8. Review information and update as needed
  9. Provide funding information
  10. Create pdf for review
  11. Correct or approve the pdf for submission

Types of Articles (see detailed description below)

  • Original work (Clinical Investigation, Translational Science)
  • Brief communication
  • Review article
  • Viewpoint
  • Editorial
  • Ethical Matters
  • Take a closer look at trials
  • Take Notice: Technology
  • Neuro-Images
  • Letters to the editor
  • Response to a Letter to the Editor
  • Invited commentary
  • Special article (require prior approval)
  • Proceedings (require prior approval)

What to Expect after Submission

The editorial staff will review your submission and determine whether the work meets our criteria for external peer review. Those that do not are returned to the authors.

We strive to have three peer reviewers evaluate your submission. When complete, reviews are evaluated by the editors, and an initial decision is made using the following options:

  • Reject - there are major uncorrectable concerns about originality, relevance, methodology, validity or overall quality.
  • Revise and reconsider - the paper is not acceptable as it stands; suggestions are offered about how to improve it, and a second review will be required
  • Revisions needed - the manuscript is likely acceptable, but additional revisions are needed.
  • Accept as is

If a revision is requested, you will be provided with the reviewers' and editor's comments and asked to provide point-by-point responses along with a revised manuscript. Additional rounds of peer review and revision may be required.

Once accepted, the manuscript is sent for production, and page proofs are generated. This process usually takes about three weeks. The proofs will be sent to you for you to review. We ask that you complete your review within 2 business days in order avoid delay posting your paper online. Later, it will be incorporated into an issue of Neurocritical Care.

This journal also publishes special/guest-edited issues and topical collections. The peer review process for these articles is the same as the peer review process of the journal in general. Additionally, if the guest editor(s) authors an article in their special issue, they will not handle the peer review process.

General requirements all for submissions

Authorship

The criteria for authorship adopted by Neurocritical Care are set by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (http://www.icmje.org/). A discussion of role of authors and criteria for authorship can be found here. Authorship credit should only be attributed to contributors that meet all these criteria:

  1. Substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;
  2. Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content;
  3. Final approval of the version to be published;
  4. 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.

Acquisition of funding, the collection of data, feedback on the manuscript, or general supervision of the research group, by themselves, do not justify authorship. Two individuals may be designated a co-primary author.

The authors may add a study group name as an author in the byline and list the study group members in an appropriate footnote in the first page of the manuscript in order to have their names entered in PubMed as Collaborators.

Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Assisted Technology

Authors must disclose whether they used artificial intelligence (AI) - assisted technologies (such as Large Language Models [LLMs], chatbots, or image creators) in the production of submitted work. They should describe, in both the cover letter and the methods section of the submitted work, what platform was employed and how they used it. Indicate how specifically AI was used, including use of AI for research; editorial work (writing, editing, translation), referencing, design (making tables, figures, graphs and photos); and search, classifying, analyzing, or doing bibliographic studies.

Authors should be able to assert that there is no plagiarism in their paper, including in text and images produced by the AI. Humans must ensure there is appropriate attribution of all quoted material, including full citations.

Chatbots (such as ChatGPT) should not be listed as authors because they cannot be responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the work, and these responsibilities are required for authorship.

Cover Letter

The cover letter should:

  • Identify the type of article and confirm that it complies with all instructions to authors
  • Indicate why the submission is appropriate for publication in Neurocritical Care

Title Page

The title page should contain the following information:

  • Full Title without subtitles
  • For each author name, highest degree and current institutional affiliation
  • Word count (see below)
  • Number of Figures and Tables
  • Corresponding author contact information including e-mail address

Word count

Word counts apply to the body of the manuscript

They do NOT include abstract, figure legends, table legends, references, acknowledgments, sources of funding, COI disclosures, ethical information or authors contributions

See below for specific limit for each article type.

Details page

This should include statements that:

  1. Confirm that manuscript complies with all instructions to authors
  2. Detailed description of individual author contributions
  3. Confirm that authorship requirements (see below) have been met and the final manuscript was approved by all authors
  4. Confirm that this manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration by another journal
  5. Confirm adherence to ethical guidelines and indicate ethical approvals (IRB) and use of informed consent, as appropriate (see below). Retrospective studies require a statement regarding IRB approval
  6. Disclose Conflicts of Interest for all authors (see below for details)
  7. Confirm the use of reporting checklist (see below), if appropriate
  8. List sources of funding for the study

Checklists

It is mandatory to include at the end of Original Work and Review Articles manuscripts the appropriate EQUATOR checklist for your study. Please find the appropriate checklist at Equator Network.

Text

The text should be double-spaced, written in standard scientific English, and carefully proofread. Include page numbers.

****Non-standard abbreviations should be avoided wherever possible*****; if used they should be defined on first use and be dissimilar from other abbreviations.

References

References in the narrative text should be superscript (like this¹ and this²-³). The reference list should be numbered consecutively as they are cited. List all citation authors when there are six or fewer; when there are seven or more, list the first three, followed by et al. When in doubt, follow PubMed style. Include DOI and original link where available. Do not use any grouping or linking features for references. An Endnote template can be found here. Sample references:

Journal article

Shapiro AMJ, Lakey JRT, Ryan EA, et al. Islet transplantation in seven patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus using a glucocorticoid-free immunosuppressive regimen. N Engl J Med 2000;343:230-8 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200007273430401. 10.1056/NEJM200007273430401.

Journal article online ahead of print/epub ahead of print

Guan WJ, Ni ZY, Hu Y, et al. Clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 in China N Engl J Med February 28, 2020 [Online ahead of print] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2002032. 10.1056/NEJMoa2002032.

Book reference

Goadsby PJ. Pathophysiology of headache. In: Silberstein SD, Lipton RB, Dalessio DJ, eds. Wolff's headache and other head pain. 7th ed. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2001:57-72.

Web reference

Association of British Neurologists Guidance on COVID-19 for People with Neurological Conditions. Their Doctors and Carers. Association of British Neurologists. March 22, 2020. Accessed April 2, 2020. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.theabn.org/resource/collection/6750BAE6-4CBC-4DDB-A684-116E03BFE634/ABN_Neurology_COVID-19_Guidance_22.3.20.pdf.

Health NYC. COVID-19: Data: Cases, Hospitalizations and Deaths. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. City of New York. Updated May 1, 2020. Accessed April 15, 2020. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page.

Numbered references to personal communications, unpublished data, or manuscripts either "in preparation" or "submitted for publication" are unacceptable. If essential, such materials can be incorporated at appropriate places in the text.

Figure and tables

Provide titles, spell out all abbreviations (in alphabetical order), and number consecutively with Arabic numerals. See below for specific article type. Use a separate page for each; callouts (if any) should be in CAPITAL LETTERS.

Figure captions

Figure captions should be placed in a separate section at the end of the manuscript. Define all abbreviations (in alphabetical order) and provide sufficient information to interpret the figure without reading the text.

Illustrations

Illustrations must be provided in professional-quality, finished form, ready for direct reproduction without revision (see below). Micrograph magnification should be given with scale bars defined in microns, not as "x magnification."

Computer Graphics

If your submission includes Computer Graphics, acceptable software formats are Adobe Illustrator versions 5 and up, Adobe Photoshop versions 5 and up, and MS Office. Acceptable file formats are as follows: EPS (Encapsulated Postscript), TIFF, and those native software formats listed above. DPI specifications: line art should be no less than 1200 dpi; halftone scans should be 300 dpi. Preferred file formats for graphics are as follows:

  • Vector graphics: EPS
  • Line art (black & white with no shading) and halftone art (photographs, drawings, or paintings with shading): TIFF

Preferred file formats for media: avi, wmv, mp4, mov, m2p, mp2, mpg, mpeg, flv, mxf, mts, m4v, 3gp. Resolution: 16:9 or 4:3. Maximum file size: 25 GB. Minimum video duration: 1 second

Color Art

For color printed in the hardcopy version, there is a flat $1,150 fee. Color figures will be published online at no cost. If the fee represents a hardship, contact the editor. All color art must adhere to the guidelines under Computer Graphics. Color art must be prepared in RGB color mode.

Special Requirements for Submission Types

Original Work

  • Original work submitted should consist of a scholarly clinical investigation, translational science or formal literature review that produces new knowledge.
  • There are no specific limits to number of authors, word count, or tables/figures; still authors are expected to communicate their message succinctly.
  • Abstract: Structured abstract, maximum of 300 words. The abstract should provide the context or background for the study and should state the study's purpose, basic procedures, main findings (include data values and their statistical and clinical significance, if appropriate, not just descriptive terms), and principal conclusions. It should emphasize new and important aspects of the study or observations, note important limitations, and not over interpret findings. It should include the following sections: Background/Objective, Methods, Results, and Conclusions.
  • Body of Manuscript: The text should be divided into the following sections: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions.
    • Introduction: Provide a context or background for the study (that is, the nature of the problem and its significance). State the specific purpose or research objective of, or hypothesis tested by, the study or observation. Cite only directly pertinent references and do not include data or conclusions from the work being reported.
    • Methods: The guiding principle of the Methods section should be clarity about how and why a study was done in a particular way. Methods section should aim to be sufficiently detailed such that others with access to the data would be able to reproduce the results. It should include a statement indicating that the research was approved by an independent local, regional or national review body.
    • Results: Present your results in logical sequence in the text, tables, and figures, giving the main or most important findings first. Do not repeat all the data in the tables or figures in the text; emphasize or summarize only the most important observations. Provide data on all primary and secondary outcomes identified in the Methods section. Give numeric results not only as derivatives (e.g. percentages) but also as the absolute numbers from which the derivatives were calculated, and specify the statistical significance attached to them, if any.
    • Discussion: Begin the discussion by briefly summarizing the main findings, and explore possible mechanisms or explanations for these findings. Emphasize the new and important aspects of your study and put your findings in the context of the totality of the relevant evidence. State the limitations of your study and explore the implications of your findings for future research and for clinical practice or policy.
    • Conclusions: Link the conclusions with the goals of the study but avoid unqualified statements and conclusions not adequately supported by the data.
  • The appropriate EQUATOR checklist must be included with each submission. Please find the appropriate checklist at Equator Network.

Meta-analyses

  • Systematic meta-analyses should use high-quality methodology (pre-registered, published protocol, systematic search, selection and reporting paper) and address relevant clinical questions not already or completely addressed in the literature. Reviews must comply with the PRISMA Statement and must be prospectively registered at Prospero.
  • Meta-analyses should be submitted as Original Work following the instructions listed above.

Review Article

  • The journal is primarily interested in receiving systematic reviews and meta-analyses that use high-quality methodology (pre-registered, published protocol, systematic search, selection and reporting paper) and address relevant clinical questions not already or completely addressed in the literature. Reviews must comply with the PRISMA Statement and must be prospectively registered at Prospero.
  • Narrative/Scoping Reviews should only be submitted after prior consultation with the Editors and are subject to the peer-review process. They represent the state-of-the-art in a specific field of research and are prepared by senior authors with a broad knowledge of the field and should not simply restate the literature but rather interpret and integrate the findings to provide a framework for understanding a particular topic.
  • Submissions should be balanced, comprehensive, and up-to-date.
  • Abstract: unstructured, 300 word maximum
  • Maximum article length: 5,000 words (applies to the body of the manuscript only)
  • Supplementary information can be published in electronic supplements without limitation.
  • The appropriate EQUATOR checklist must be included with each submission. Please find the appropriate checklist at Equator Network.

Brief communication

  • Brief communications should consist of focused (or highly innovative preliminary) reports of clinical or translational interest.
  • Structured abstract 200 word maximum
  • Maximum length is 1,500 words
  • Maximum 3 figures and tables

Viewpoint

  • Submissions for Viewpoints should raise an issue, provide a perspective, or make an argument about a topic relevant to neurocritical care.
  • Maximum article length: 2,500 words (applies to the body of the manuscript only)

Editorial

  • Editorials are always commissioned by the Editors and comment on one or more articles in the Journal and are by invitation only
  • Maximum number of authors: 3
  • No abstract
  • Maximum article length: 1,500 words (applies to the body of the manuscript only)
  • Up to 15 references
  • Inclusion of a table or figure is encouraged.

Ethical Matters

  • Submissions should provide a balanced discussion of an ethical issue of relevance to neurocritical care.
  • Maximum number of authors: 5
  • Abstract: unstructured, 300 word maximum
  • Maximum article length: 5,000 words (applies to the body of the manuscript only)

Take a Closer Look at Trials

  • Submission should inform the reader about new, ongoing or recently completed trials. They may include trial protocols, reports of ongoing trials, or perspective on completed trials.
  • No limit on number of authors
  • Abstract: unstructured, 300 word maximum

Take Notice: Technology

  • The manuscript should focus on raising awareness of a new device or new application of an old device.
  • Maximum number of authors: 3
  • Abstract: optional, unstructured, 300 word maximum
  • Maximum article length: 2,500 words (applies to the body of the manuscript only)

Lessons learned

Lessons Learned articles should focus on case presentations that provide an opportunity to explore teachable moments among early career practitioners. They should discuss an interesting differential diagnosis, treatment decision making, stretching the common limits of use of diagnostic or treatment tools, or potential harms resulting from the overuse or underuse of diagnostic tests or interventions. This series is not intended to publish case reports (rare presentations of common conditions or common presentations of rare conditions

  1. ≤1,500 Words
  2. Requires use of relevant reporting guideline and extension, if applicable
  3. Requires information on research ethics and informed consent, and consent to disclose
  4. No abstract.
  5. Maximum number of authors: 5
  6. Include the following elements (as appropriate):
    1. Describe the scenario that frames the issue
    2. Differential diagnosis
    3. Frame the dilemma/lesson to be learned
    4. Review the clinical reasoning and decision making applied
    5. Present the outcome of the decision made or lesson learned
    6. Suggest how to apply the lesson in the future

Neuro-Images

  • Focus on unusual and informative images that impact clinical decision making
  • Submission under the Image section must be of high scientific quality and value as well as providing didactic and self-explanatory lessons. They must be unique and adhere to ethical standards with patient/relative approval when appropriate, protection of patient identity and privacy, and local ethics approval.
  • No abstract
  • No references
  • This series is not intended to publish case reports (rare presentations of common conditions or common presentations of rare conditions Requires information on research ethics and informed consent, and consent to disclose.
  • Include very brief description of the case
  • Figure legends/descriptions may be up to 250 words each
  • Images should be at least 300 dpi
  • Maximum number of authors 4
  • No section heading
  • Maximum article length: 1,000 words (applies to the body of the manuscript only)

Trial protocols

  • The journal will consider protocols of Phase III trials for publication.

Letter to the editor

  • Submissions should express comments on interpretation of articles previously published in Neurocritical Care.
  • Maximum number of authors: 5
  • Maximum article length: 1,500 words
  • No reference limit, the first reference must be the publication in question.
  • The authors of the commented original article will be invited to write a reply

Response to a Letter to the Editor

  • Maximum length: 1,500 words
  • No reference limit, the first reference must be the publication in question.

Invited commentary

  • Invited only
  • No abstract
  • Commentaries will accompany selected papers.
  • The primary focus is on how to interpret the article.
  • The commentary could include: 1) discussion of the strengths and weakness of the paper that you identified in the review process, 2) placing the paper in the context of what is known about the topic, 3) clarifying what message the reader should take away from the paper, 4) how the findings should be (or not) integrated into practice.
  • 500-1,000 words
  • Cite the paper they discuss; other references are optional.

Special article

  • Neurocritical Care Society guidelines, position statements, policy statements etc.
  • Prior approval required before submission.

Proceedings

  • Report on presentations, panels, debates, and other work products of meetings
  • Prior approval required before submission.
  • No abstract.

Case reports

  • The Journal does not publish case reports

Funding/Support

Include details about support for the work including Funder, Award Number, and Grant Recipient

Disclosure of Potential Conflict of Interests (COI)

All authors must disclose all relationships or interests that could influence or bias the work. A statement must be included in Details Page of the manuscript that lists all potential conflicts of each author. Although an author may not feel there are conflicts, disclosure of relationships and interests that might appear to represent a potential conflict of interest affords a more transparent process, leading to an accurate and objective assessment of the work. Awareness of real or perceived conflicts of interests is a perspective to which the readers are entitled and is not meant to imply that a financial relationship with an organization that sponsored the research or compensation for consultancy work is inappropriate. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that are directly or indirectly related to the research or manuscript may include but are not limited to the following:

  • Research grants from funding agencies (please give the research funder and the grant number)
  • Honoraria for speaking at symposia
  • Financial support for attending symposia
  • Financial support for educational programs
  • Employment or consultation
  • Support from a project sponsor

Position on advisory board or board of directors or other type of management relationships

  • Multiple affiliations
  • Financial relationships, for example equity ownership or investment interest
  • Intellectual property rights (e.g., patents, copyrights and royalties from such rights)
  • Holdings of spouse and/or children that may have financial interest in the work

In addition, interests that go beyond financial interests and compensation (non-financial interests) that may be important to readers should be disclosed. These may include but are not limited to personal relationships or competing interests directly or indirectly tied to this research or professional interests or personal beliefs that may influence your research. Examples of disclosures:

  • Funding: This study was funded by X (grant number X).
  • Conflict of Interest: Author A has received research grants from Company A. Author B has received a speaker honorarium from Company X and owns stock in Company Y. Author C is a member of committee Z.
  • If no conflict exists, the authors should state: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Open Access

Neurocritical Care is a Transformative Journal (TJ). When research is accepted for publication, authors can choose to publish using either the traditional publishing route OR via immediate gold Open Access. Authors may need to take specific actions to achieve compliance with funder and institutional open access mandates. If your research is supported by a funder that requires immediate open access (e.g. according to Plan S principles) then you should select the gold OA route, and we will direct you to the compliant route where possible.

Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

This journal is committed to upholding the integrity of the scientific record. As a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) the journal will follow the COPE guidelines on how to deal with potential acts of misconduct. Authors should refrain from misrepresenting research results that could damage the trust in the journal and ultimately the entire scientific endeavor. Maintaining integrity of the research and its presentation can be achieved by following the rules of good scientific practice, which include:

  • The manuscript has not been submitted to more than one journal for simultaneous consideration.
  • The manuscript has not been published previously (partly or in full), unless the new work concerns an expansion of previous work (please provide transparency on the re-use of material to avoid the hint of text-recycling (“self- plagiarism”)).
  • A single study is not split up into several parts and submitted to various journals or to one journal over time to increase the number of submissions (e.g. “salami publishing”).
  • No data have been fabricated or manipulated (including images) to support your conclusions
  • No data, text, or theories by others are presented as if they were the authors’ own (“plagiarism”). Proper acknowledgements to other works must be given, including material that is closely copied (near verbatim), summarized and/or paraphrased). Quotation marks must be used for verbatim copying of material, and permissions secured for material that is copyrighted.
  • Important note: the journal may use software to screen for plagiarism.
  • Consent to submit has been received from all co-authors and responsible authorities at the institution/organization where the work has been carried out before the work is submitted.
  • Authors whose names appear on the submission have contributed sufficiently to the scientific work and therefore share collective responsibility and accountability for the results.
  • Changes of authorship or in the order of authors are not permitted after acceptance of a manuscript.
  • Requests to add or delete authors at revision stage or after publication is a serious matter and may be considered only after receipt of written approval from all authors and detailed explanation about the role/deletion of the new/deleted author. The decision on accepting the change rests with the Editor-in-Chief of the journal.
  • Upon request, authors should be prepared to send relevant documentation or data in order to verify the validity of the results. This could be in the form of raw data, samples, records, etc.
  • If there is a suspicion of misconduct, the journal will carry out an investigation following the COPE guidelines. If, after investigation, the allegation seems to raise valid concerns, the accused author will be contacted and given an opportunity to address the issue. If misconduct has been proven, this may result in the Editor-in-Chief’s implementation of the following measures, including, but not limited to:
    • If the article is still under consideration, it may be rejected and returned to the author.
    • If the article has already been published online, depending on the nature and severity of the infraction, either an erratum will be placed with the article or in severe cases complete retraction of the article will occur. The reason must be given in the published erratum or retraction note. The author’s institution may be informed.

Statement of Human and Animal Rights

When reporting studies that involve human participants, authors should include a statement that the studies have been approved by the appropriate institutional and/or national research ethics committee and have been performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration or comparable standards, the authors must explain the reasons for their approach, and demonstrate that the independent ethics committee or institutional review board explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. The welfare of animals used for research must be respected. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should indicate whether the institutional and/or national guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. For studies with animals, the following statement should be included: “All applicable institutional and/or national guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.”

If articles do not contain studies with human participants or animals by any of the authors, Springer recommends including the following sentence: “This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.” For retrospective studies, please add the following sentence: “For this type of study, formal consent is not required.”

Informed consent

All individuals have rights that are not to be infringed. For example, individual study participants have the right to decide what happens to the (identifiable) personal data gathered and to what they have said, e.g. during a study or an interview, as well as to any photograph that was taken. Hence it is important that all participants gave their informed consent in writing prior to inclusion in the study. Identifying details (names, dates of birth, identity numbers and other information) of the participants that were studied should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, and genetic profiles unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the participant (or parent or guardian if the participant is incapable) has given written informed consent for publication. Complete anonymity is difficult to achieve in some cases, and informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of participants is inadequate protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity, such as in genetic profiles, authors should provide assurance that alterations do not distort scientific meaning.

When appropriate, a statement should be included indicating that Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants (or surrogates) included in the study. If consent was not required the reason should be stated (review articles, IRB waived need for consent, etc.). If identifying information about participants is available in the article, the following statement should be included: “Additional informed consent was obtained from all individual participants for whom identifying information is included in this article.”

Editorial Decision Appeals Policy

Authors who wish to appeal the revision or rejection decision for their manuscript may submit a formal appeal. The appeal must be submitted by the corresponding author of the manuscript to the Editor-in-Chief. All authors must agree to the submission of the appeal.

The appeal request will be considered by the journal’s Editor-in-Chief. And assessed in accordance with the journal’s policies and aims and scope. The journal will notify the corresponding author of the outcome of the appeal. Should the journal agree to reconsider the manuscript, acceptance is not guaranteed, and the reconsideration process may involve re-review by previous or new reviewers and/or Editors, and substantive revision.

Complaints

Submission of complaint: When an author has a complaint related to any aspect of the publishing process, they are encouraged to reach out to our editorial office. The author should provide details regarding the specifics of the issue and provide supporting evidence or documentation, as appropriate. Upon receiving a complaint our editorial team will conduct an initial assessment and, if warranted a thorough investigation. A response will be provided as soon as possible.

Reprints

Reprints are available to authors at standard rates. Authors will receive reprint order forms with proofs of articles. Both paper and PDF reprints can be purchased. You will receive a free electronic offprint in PDF format after online publication.

English Language Support

Manuscripts that are accepted for publication will be checked by our copyeditors for spelling and formal style. This may not be sufficient if English is not your native language and substantial editing would be required. In that case, you may want to have your manuscript edited by a native speaker prior to submission. A clear and concise language will help editors and reviewers concentrate on the scientific content of your paper and thus smooth the peer review process. Editing services provide language editing for scientific articles in all areas in which Springer publishes. Use of an editing service is neither a requirement nor a guarantee of acceptance for publication. Two available options are SpringerNature Author Services and American Journal Experts. Please contact an editing service directly to make arrangements for editing and payment.

Editing services provide language editing for scientific articles in all areas in which Springer publishes. Use of an editing service is neither a requirement nor a guarantee of acceptance for publication. Two available options are SpringerNature Author Services and American Journal Experts.

Please contact an editing service directly to make arrangements for editing and payment.