Instructions for Authors
Before submitting a manuscript to Anesthesiology, please read these Instructions carefully. Each author on a manuscript submission is required to understand the material below.
Manuscripts must be submitted electronically via the Journal's online submission system. Authors should allow approximately 3-4 weeks for first decision. Authors will be notified if delays occur.
Due to the high volume of manuscripts we receive, we cannot provide status updates via telephone, fax, or e-mail. Authors can view the status of their submissions through the Editorial Manager submission site.
- Role of the Corresponding Author
- Group Authorship
- Non-Author Collaborators
- Changes to Authorship after Submission
- Compliance with Funder-mandated Open Access Policies
- Duplicate, Prior or Divided Publication
- Scientific Misconduct
- Human Studies
- Animal Studies
- Conflicts of Interest and Sponsorship
- Compliance with NIH and Other Research Funding Agency Accessibility Requirements
- Editorial Decisions and Appeals
- Reporting Requirements
- CME for Authors
- Original Investigations
- Presubmission Reviews and Proposals
- Comprehensive Reviews
- Clinical Focus Review
- Readers Toolbox
- Special Articles
- Images in Anesthesiology
- Mind to Mind
- Letters to the Editor
- Other Article Types
- Title Page
- Body Text
- Figure Legends
- Manuscripts In Press
- Supplemental Digital Content
- Journal Style Considerations
Anesthesiology strongly endorses the practice of appropriately crediting contributions to research publications, towards the goals of providing proper recognition, fairness, and transparency for authors and readers, ensuring Journal best practices, and clarity of communication. Appropriate credit for contributions to basic, clinical, and population research is an important aspect of scholarly publications.
Author confers credit and denotes responsibility and accountability for published work. Anesthesiology authorship criteria are intended to denote the status of authorship for those who have made a substantial intellectual contribution to a manuscript, deserve credit for their contribution, and take responsibility for the work. Proper authorship is a matter of scholarly integrity and enhances confidence in the validity of published research. Criteria for authorship in Anesthesiology are based on elements from the World Association of Medical Editors, Committee on Publication Ethics, Council of Science Editors, and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (see Authorship and Publication Matters: Credit and credibility. Anesthesiology. 2021).
Authors in Anesthesiology must satisfy all of the following 5 criteria:
1. Scholarship: Substantial intellectual contributions to research conception or design, execution, data analysis, or interpretation of the results; AND
2. Authorship: Drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
3. Approval: Final approval of the version to be published; AND
4. Ethics: Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the research and manuscript; AND
5. Integrity: Ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the research and manuscript, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and communicated (where needed).
All authors should meet all five criteria, and all contributors who meet the five criteria should be authors. Those who do not meet all five criteria can be listed as Collaborators in an appendix or in the Acknowledgments section, as outlined in detail below. Each author should be able to identify the specific contributions of their co-authors, and have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors.
It is not the role of Anesthesiology to determine who does or does not quality for authorship or to arbitrate authorship conflicts. If agreement cannot be reached about who qualifies for authorship, the institution(s) where the work was performed, not the Journal, should be engaged. The order in which authors are listed on the byline must be decided collectively by the authors and not by the Journal. The list of authors and the order listed must be established at the time of original submission. Any change to authorship after submission is highly discouraged; however, if needed, see Changes to authorship after submission
Authors may indicate (no more than) two first authors in the byline who contributed equally ("#" next to their names and "# These authors contributed equally to the work" at the end of the Title Page). Please note, however, that this will not change how the authors appear in future citations to the article.
There is no limit on the number of authors listed in the byline for an original investigation (provided each author meets all authorship criteria), however a long author list may not fit in the space for the author byline. In this case, other options include Group Authors (see below).
Back to top
Contributors who do not meet all 5 of the above authorship criteria should not be listed as authors, but can be included in the Acknowledgments. Examples of activities that alone (without all five author qualifications) do not qualify a contributor for authorship are: acquisition of funding; general supervision of a research group; general administrative support; mentoring; providing patients, reagents, animals, or other study materials; collecting samples; writing assistance; technical editing; language editing; and proofreading. Those whose contributions do not justify authorship may be acknowledged individually or listed as collaborators. See the section below under Acknowledgments and the section on non-author Collaborators.
Any participation by a professional writer in a manuscript must be disclosed for transparency. Professional writers meeting all authorship criteria must be listed authors. Those who only drafted or edited the manuscript but did not have a role in the study design, data analysis, or interpretation of results must be identified in the Acknowledgments section along with information about compensation (including which entity/entities) and potential conflicts of interest.
Unacceptable forms of authorship
Authorship fraud is considered a type of research fraud (see Assessing the Perceived prevalence of research fraud among faculty at research-intensive universities in the USA. Account Res 2020;27:457-75). The following types of authorship are unacceptable:
1. Gift authorship (honorary, courtesy): Offered from a sense of obligation, tribute, dependence or respect to an individual who has not contributed to the work, in return for anticipated benefit (e.g., Department Chair). Perceived to be the most prevalent type of authorship fraud.
2. Guest authorship (celebrity, prestige, complementary): Granted in the belief that expert standing of the guest will increase the likelihood of publication, or the credibility of status of the work or the authors.
3. Ghost authorship: Failure to identify someone who merited authorship (may range from uncredited authors-for-hire to major contributors not named as an author).
- Role of the Corresponding Author Anesthesiology takes very seriously the responsible conduct of research. Each manuscript must have a single Corresponding Author who takes primary responsibility for communication with Anesthesiology during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process, and ensures that all the journal’s policies and administrative requirements, such as providing details (if requested) of authorship (including that all authors meet all criteria for authorship, and all who meet the criteria should be identified as authors), ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and listing of comprehensive conflict of interest statements, are met and properly completed. Manuscript submissions will be returned without assessment if more than one author is designated as the Corresponding Author. Upon submission, the Corresponding Author is required to attest to the validity and legitimacy of the data and interpretation, on behalf of all authors (who are also responsible for the validity and legitimacy of the data and interpretation). The Corresponding Author is responsible for ensuring that all authors meet the criteria for authorship, have reviewed and approved the manuscript and have completed the conflict of interest disclosures. If the manuscript is accepted, the same corresponding author is the primary contact during the production, publication, and postpublication stages, including reviewing and approving the proof and for all other publication matters. The Corresponding Author must also be available after publication to respond to critiques of the work and to cooperate with any requests from the journal for data or additional information should questions about the manuscript arise after publication. This latter responsibility is an enduring one, as questions may arise years after the submission and publication of a manuscript. The Corresponding Author should have sufficient and ongoing accountability and availability for the research and publication. The role of the Corresponding Author is one of scholarly integrity, in which the Corresponding Author makes a number of statutory and ethical statements on behalf of all authors. Although there are certain administrative roles of the Corresponding Author, these cannot be separated from the other responsibilities, or delegated. Each manuscript should also have the same Corresponding Author throughout the submission, publication, and post-publication process. The designated Corresponding Author must be the person who submits the manuscript and is responsible for all communications for all iterations and all phases of the manuscript. Back to top
- Group Authorship
When authorship is attributed to a group in the byline (known as group, corporate, organization, or collective names), all members of the group must meet all five criteria for authorship as described above. Group authorship requires the same level of participation as individually-named (personal) authorship. Anyone listed as a Group author must meet all five criteria for authorship, and other contributors can be listed as collaborators or acknowledged. An explicit statement as to the exact nature of each Group author’s participation must be provided at the time a revised manuscript is submitted; upload this under the submission item Authorship Information. It is important to separately identify Group authors and non-author Collaborators. All members of the Group authors must be entered into Editorial Manager individually to verify their authorship and must complete the Copyright Transfer/Disclosure Form. Manuscripts may be held until all authors have verified authorship and confirmed that they have seen the submitted manuscript.
a. Group authorship may be in the form of some named authors in the byline, in combination with a Research Group name. All members of the Research Group must be qualified authors, and all must meet authorship criteria. To indicate that all members of the group meet all authorship criteria, the byline must be in the format of Individual Authors Smith, Jones, Weiss, etc. "and" the Research Group (eg, Smith A, Jones B, Weiss C; and the Generic Outcomes Group). Use of the connector “and” indicates that there are other individual authors who are not named in the byline. The name of the Research Group and the byline authors and the non-byline authors should be listed in an Appendix at the end of the manuscript, along with their affiliations, institutional position or title, contributions, and conflicts of interest disclosures. In PubMed, the authors named in the byline and the individual non-byline authors in the Research Group will be indexed as authors along with the Group Name.
b. Group authorship may be in the form of a Research Group name alone in the byline and a list of the individual group authors in an Appendix along with their affiliations, institutional position or title, contributions, and conflict of interest disclosures. In PubMed, the Group name is listed and all authors are indexed in the order they appear in the Appendix.
Group author names must be listed in the full text of the article (in an Appendix), rather than in a supplementary online file.
Back to top
- Non-Author Collaborators
Individuals working with a Research Group who do not meet all five of the criteria for authorship may be listed as Collaborators provided that they substantially contributed to the work reported in the manuscript. If desired, Collaborators names can be listed as such in PubMed, in addition to the list of authors. They are listed in a separate Collaborators section in a paragraph below the author byline. If Collaborators are to be indexed in PubMed, they must be a part of a designated collaborator or corporate group, and that group name (“ABC Consortium”, “ABC Collaborators”, “ABC Investigators”, etc.) must appear in the author byline. In order to differentiate between a full author group and a non-author collaborator group, the article byline for the latter is Individual Authors Smith, Jones, Weiss, etc. "for" the Research Collaborators (e.g., Smith A, Jones B, Weiss C; for the Generic Outcomes Investigators). Use of the connector “for” indicates that the authors in the byline represent the group, which includes others who are not authors. Non-author Collaborator names, degrees, institutional affiliation, and institutional title or position should be listed in an Appendix, and not included in a supplementary online file. In this listing collaborator contributions should be specified (e.g., "served as scientific advisors", "critically reviewed the study proposal", "collected data", "provided and cared for study patients", "participated in writing or technical editing of the manuscript").
The Corresponding Author is responsible for completing the Collaborators statement for the manuscript and only including those members of the group who have substantially contributed and have provided written permission to be listed in the published article. Non-author Collaborators are not required to complete the Copyright Transfer/Disclosure form.
Anesthesiology requires that authors provide their institutional affiliation, institutional title or position, and institutional email address upon manuscript submission. If the institution does not have an email system then a personal email address is acceptable. If an author is an unpaid employee, visiting scholar or visiting student, both the home institution and the institution at which the work was done should be listed as affiliations and each clearly identified as such. Collaborator institutional affiliation and institutional title or position must be listed in an Appendix to the full text of the article, rather than in a supplementary online file.
Other contributors may be thanked in an Acknowledgment section. Because acknowledgment may imply endorsement by acknowledged individuals of a study's data and conclusions, Anesthesiology requires that the corresponding author obtain written permission to be acknowledged from the all acknowledged individuals, prior to manuscript submission. This information does not need to be uploaded as part of the manuscript submission, but must be available upon request. Acknowledged individuals are not indexed in PubMed.
If relevant to your submission, contact the Editorial Office for further information about how to distinguish and mark group authorship and group collaborators.
Back to top
- Changes to authorship after submission
Authors on a work must be established before submission, and all authors must meet all the criteria for authorship. Any change in authorship (order, addition, removal, designated corresponding author) after the original submission is considered unusual and is highly discouraged. A request for such a change must be made in writing by the Corresponding Author, requires a clear and thorough explanation and justification for the change, and must be approved by the Editor-in-Chief.
IIn addition to the request from the Corresponding Author, each author, including, as relevant, the person being added or removed, must independently provide signed, written approval of the change to be submitted to Anesthesiology. This documentation must also include a definition of the contribution of every person listed as an author on the initial submission and the subsequent version/s. Each person must explain their contribution to the original manuscript and revised manuscript/s and their understanding of the contributions of each other person listed as an author to the original manuscript and revised manuscript/s. You may wish to contact the Editorial Office for the full procedure and required documentation.
The submission will be returned to the authors until all appropriate information is received. The Corresponding Author is responsible for collating all the documentation and submitting it under the submission item Authorship Information when returning the manuscript into the online system. While the Editor-in-Chief considers the request, further processing of the manuscript will be suspended. Requests for change in authorship are not guaranteed and are granted at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.
Any changes (author order, addition, removal) to authors listed in a Research Group or as Group Collaborators made after manuscript submission must be requested by the Corresponding Author and require a clear and thorough explanation and justification for the change, and must be approved by the Editor-in-Chief. The person(s) being added or removed from the Research Group or Group Collaborators, and each author listed on the byline must independently provide signed, written approval of the change to be submitted to Anesthesiology. Other members of a Research Group or Group Collaborators, not listed on a byline, do not have to provide such approval. However, the Corresponding Author must provide a written statement to Anesthesiology that all co-authors have been informed of and approve the change in Research Group or Group Collaborators and the reason for the change and provide a copy of the notice to Anesthesiology.
Back to top
- Copyright Each author must complete and submit the journal’s Copyright Transfer Agreement, which includes a section on the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest based on the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, “Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals.” A copy of the form is made available to the submitting author within the Editorial Manager submission process. Co-authors will automatically receive an email with instructions on completing the form upon revision. Back to top
- Compliance with Funder-mandated Open Access Policies
A number of nonprofit research funding agencies require authors to comply with open access mandates and publish their research under a creative commons license. At submission, please disclose any applicable funding sources that require open access publication. Refer to http://www.wkopenhealth/inst-fund.php, if needed, for a list of Funder-Mandated Open Access Policies which Anesthesiology recognizes. If your nonprofit research funding agency is not on this list and you have eligibility questions, please contact the Editorial Office. Open access eligibility decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief.
Note that this is not the same as research funding agencies that require or request authors to submit an accepted manuscript after peer review and acceptance but not the final published article to a repository that is accessible online by all without charge.
Authors of articles that have been funded from sources that require open access publication are required to sign the Open Access License Agreement prior to publication of the applicable article. Under the Open Access License Agreement, authors retain copyright for all articles they opt to publish open access, but grant an exclusive license for the article to be made available under the terms of a Creative Commons user license. The Creative Commons License required by the funding source shall apply.
Authors of articles funded by the agencies listed above who are interested in open access publication should fill out the open access option upon manuscript submission in Editorial Manager and include the name of their funding body. This choice has no influence on the peer review and acceptance process. These articles are subject to the journal’s standard peer-review process and will be accepted or rejected based on their own merit.
The article processing fee is charged on acceptance of the article and should be paid within 30 days by the author, funding agency or institution. Payment must be processed for the article to be published open access. Please contact the Editorial Office to receive the Open Access License Agreement that is to be signed in connection with the open access publication of an article.
Back to top
- Duplicate or Prior Publication
Submitted manuscripts must not have been published elsewhere, in whole or in part, on paper or electronically. This includes personal, departmental, educational or other websites, such as Research Square, and video sharing sites (such as YouTube). This does not apply to abstracts of scientific meetings, or to lecture handouts (e.g., ASA Annual Meeting), which should be disclosed on the title page. It is improper for authors to submit a manuscript describing essentially the same research simultaneously to more than one peer-reviewed research journal. To do so is to overuse valuable editorial and reviewing time. It also increases the risk of duplicate publication.
Anesthesiology uses iThenticate software to screen submitted manuscripts for duplication of published or posted articles. Plagiarism is unacceptable and considered scientific misconduct. Rewording text just to disguise previously published material or avoid detection by plagiarism software is not acceptable. Authors are responsible for obtaining and uploading any needed permissions and for clearly and completely identifying any overlapping material and/or quoted or paraphrased passages with proper attribution in the text to avoid plagiarism).
Occasionally authors may wish to replicate text from previously published articles when describing standard methods or models used often in their laboratory or in clinical trials protocols. In these instances, changing text simply to render it different from a prior article may result in diminished clarity, and it may be more appropriate to reuse small amounts of text. It is important to distinguish text recycling (sometimes but inappropriately called “self-plagiarism”) from plagiarism, which is scientific misconduct.
Text recycling refers here to reuse of published textual material (prose or equations only, not figures) in a new document where the material is identical to the source (or substantively equivalent in both form and content), is not presented as a quotation (via quotation marks or block indentation), and at least one author is also an author of the prior publication. Anesthesiology will permit text recycling (as defined here), when restricted exclusively to a Methods section to describe a standard laboratory method or clinical protocol, and in limited amounts (sentences not multiple paragraphs), and with proper citation to its original publication, and provided it is the author’s own prior publication. A major tenet in text reuse is transparency.
Back to top
Multiple Manuscripts from Single Investigation (segmented publication) Anesthesiology welcomes multiple manuscripts derived appropriately from a single investigation. Examples may include complex clinical trials with multiple aims or outcomes, longitudinal studies with initial results and long-term follow-up, prespecified interim analysis of clinical importance, planned or unplanned secondary analyses of original trials that are important enough to justify separate publication, reanalysis of data using a novel technique not available at the time of publication, or too much information to effectively communicate in a single manuscript. A practical test for appropriateness of segmentation is whether there are completely separate hypothesis or research questions; but not when there are the same or closely related hypotheses, research questions, population, methods, or results, or splitting purely by outcomes. The following apply to such manuscripts:
- Authors are encouraged to submit multiple manuscripts from the same investigation together at the same time (excepting interim analyses and long-term follow-up studies) with explanation in a cover letter. Authors must clearly disclose at submission if another manuscript derived from the same investigation or using the same database has been published previously, submitted elsewhere, or will be submitted to another journal.
- Authors may submit secondary outcomes, analyses, and long-term follow-up of clinical trials, and with explanation in a cover letter. These must be accompanied by the manuscript (published or unpublished) describing the primary outcome or analysis. Secondary outcomes and analyses and long-term follow-ups must explicitly state (in the Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) they are part of a larger whole or primary (or interim) analysis or previously reported database and cite that article, and are usually only published after acceptance or publication of the primary outcome or analysis. Authors are encouraged to submit primary and secondary manuscripts together at the same time when appropriate.
- Inappropriate dividing of research that would form one meaningful manuscript into multiple different manuscripts is considered “salami” publication. Salami publication is unacceptable. Anesthesiology generally discourages authors from inappropriately dividing the results of a single study into multiple manuscripts. Anesthesiology does not allow salami publication, when a single comprehensive manuscript is appropriate. See Authorship and publication matters: Credit and credibility. Anesthesiology 2021)
Anesthesiology takes seriously the responsible conduct of research and ethical behavior in scholarly communications and recognizes its responsibility to appropriately address concerns of allegations of misconduct. Examples of misconduct include falsification of data, plagiarism, improper designations of authorship, duplicate publication, misappropriation of others' research, failure to disclose conflict(s) of interest, and failure to comply with applicable legislative or regulatory requirements. Misconduct also includes failure to comply with any rules, policies, or procedures implemented by Anesthesiology. When Anesthesiology has concerns or receives allegations of scientific misconduct, Anesthesiology reserves the right to proceed according to the procedures described below.
In general, Anesthesiology follows the recommendations follows the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) when working to address allegations of misconduct. When a concern or allegation is raised, involved parties will be contacted to provide an explanation of the situation. As needed, Anesthesiology may also contact the institution at which the study was conducted and any other involved journals. Anesthesiology will attempt to determine whether there was misconduct and the Editor-in-Chief will respond with an appropriate action. Examples of action include:
- Sending a letter of explanation only to the person(s) involved or against whom the allegation is made.
- Sending a letter of reprimand to the same person(s), warning of the consequences of future, similar instances.
- Sending a letter to the relevant head of the educational institution and/or financial sponsor of the person(s) involved, expressing the concerns and information collected
- Publishing in Anesthesiology a notice of duplicate publication, "salami" publishing, plagiarism, or other misconduct, if clearly documented. In cases of ghost-written manuscripts, the notice may include the names of the responsible companies as well as the submitting author(s).
- Providing specific names to the media and/or government organizations, if contacted regarding the misconduct.
- Formally withdrawing or retracting the article from Anesthesiology, and informing readers and indexing authorities.
- Banning an author or authors from publishing any manuscript in Anesthesiology for a specified time period, with notice to the author(s)’ institution.
Back to top
- Human Studies
Human experimentation must conform to ethical standards and be approved by the appropriate Institutional Review Board (IRB). A statement concerning IRB approval and consent procedures must appear at the beginning of the Methods section. Any systematic data gathering effort in patients or volunteers must be approved by an IRB or adhere to appropriate local/national regulations. The Editors of Anesthesiology are concerned about appropriate IRB review and informed consent. Authors may be questioned about the details of consent forms or the consent process. On occasion, the Editor-in-Chief may request a copy of the approved IRB application from the author. Lack of appropriate consent or documentation may be grounds for rejection. Local IRB approval does not guarantee acceptability; the final decision will be made by the Editor-in-Chief. A specific example is that of neuraxial or peri-neural administration of drugs because lack of toxicity from systemic administration does not exclude toxicity when injected near these neural structures. The Editor-in-Chief will consider appropriate study of drugs by these routes to include:
- Drugs approved for intrathecal, epidural, or peri-neural administration by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the equivalent regulatory agency for the country in which the study took place.
- Drugs not approved by these routes, but which are widely used (e.g., fentanyl for intrathecal or epidural administration). The publication of dosing guidelines in multiple textbooks represents a reasonable demonstration that a drug is widely used and accepted.
- Study performed under an Investigational New Drug (IND) application approved by the FDA or the equivalent agency in the investigator's country.
Back to top
- Animal Studies Experimental work on animals must conform to the guidelines laid out in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, which is available from the National Academy of Science. Adherence to all relevant regulations and/or approval of the appropriate institutional Animal Care Committee or governmental licensure of the investigator and/or laboratory must be obtained. A statement concerning such approval must be included at the beginning of the Methods section. The Editors of Anesthesiology are concerned about appropriate animal care. Authors may be questioned regarding the use of anesthetics, muscle relaxants, and postoperative analgesics. On occasion, the Editor-in-Chief may request a copy of the approved Animal Care Committee application from the author. Major issues are a) the postoperative use of analgesics following surgical procedures and b) the use of neuromuscular blocking drugs, particularly in minimally sedated animals. Local committee approval does not guarantee acceptability; the final decision will be made by the Editor-in-Chief. Investigators are encouraged to read the following Editorial: Drummond JC, Todd MM, Saidman LJ: Use of neuromuscular blocking drugs in scientific investigations involving animal subjects: The benefit of the doubt goes to the animal. Anesthesiology 1996; 85: 697-9. Back to top
- Conflicts of Interest and Sponsorship Anesthesiology is committed to integrity in the conduct and reporting of research. One component of scientific integrity is full disclosure of competing interests. Anesthesiology requires that all authors disclose all financial and non-financial relationships and activities, in accordance with International Committee of Medical Journal Editors “Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals.” It is not sufficient to disclose only those activities which an author believes may be associated with the topic of the article. An author's relationships or activities or competing interests are not per se a conflict. Individuals (readers, peer reviewers, editors, and authors) may disagree on whether an author's relationships or activities represent conflicts. Although the presence of a relationship or activity does not always indicate a problematic influence on a paper's content, perceptions of conflict may erode trust in science as much as actual conflicts of interest. Ultimately, readers must be able to make their own judgments regarding whether an author's relationships and activities are pertinent to a paper's content. These judgments require transparent disclosures. An author's complete disclosure demonstrates a commitment to transparency and helps to maintain trust in the scientific process. Complete disclosures include declaring all funding sources supporting their work or its authors, even if support is indirect, e.g., to a local research foundation that funded the project. This includes departmental, hospital, or institutional funds. The authors must disclose all commercial associations, including consultancies, equity interests, or patent-licensing arrangements. An author's relationships or activities or competing interests identified as conflicts during the peer review process are, in the opinion of the Editor-in-Chief, handled appropriately by Anesthesiology. Back to top
- Compliance with NIH and Other Research Funding Agency Accessibility Requirements A number of research funding agencies now require or request authors to submit the post-print version (the article after peer review and acceptance but not the final published article) to a repository that is accessible online by all without charge. As a service to Anesthesiology's authors, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins will identify to the National Library of Medicine (NLM) articles that require deposit and will transmit the post-print version of an article based on research funded in whole or in part by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Wellcome Trust, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, or other funding agencies to PubMed Central. The Copyright Transfer Agreement provides the mechanism. Back to top
- Editorial Decisions and Appeals Process Decisions on submissions to this journal are final. Anesthesiology does not allow rejected manuscripts to be resubmitted as new manuscripts; resubmissions of rejected submissions will be returned without assessment. If an author wishes to appeal an editorial decision, the appeal must be based on evidence, provided by the corresponding author, that the reviewers have misunderstood the scientific content of the manuscript, that there is evidence of reviewer conflict-of-interest or bias, and/or that there are demonstrably incorrect statements of fact in the reviews. There are two phases to the appeals process; contact the Editorial Office for complete information if you wish to submit a formal appeal. Decisions whether to consider or accept an appeal are ultimately made by the Editor-in-Chief. Informal comments or complaints after decision that do not follow the appeals process will not be considered. Back to top
- Reporting Requirements
A. Preclinical Trials. Authors of preclinical trials (experiments in animals, cells, molecules, or other biological foci) should consult Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol 2010; 8: e1000412). Authors should report 4 specific elements of study design: a) adequate description of the methods used to allow replication; b) whether measures to reduce bias, including random allocation and blinding, were used and if so, how they were performed; c) how the sample size was determined; d) the data analysis plan. For details see the following editorial: Eisenach JC; Warner DS; Houle TT; Reporting of Preclinical Research in Anesthesiology: Transparency and Enforcement. Anesthesiology 2016.
B. Clinical Trials:Authors of clinical trials (regardless of size) should consult the guidelines published by the CONSORT group [Moher D, et al for the CONSORT Group: The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials JAMA;2001; 285:1987-91 at Todd MM: Clinical research manuscripts in Anesthesiology. Anesthesiology 2001; 95: 1051-1053. Authors should consult the CONSORT checklist for items required when reporting a randomized clinical trial.
C. Registration of Clinical Trials: All clinical trials involving assignment of patients to treatment groups must be registered before patient enrollment, effective with trials beginning May 1, 2013. For trials that began enrollment before May 1, 2013, registration is strongly recommended and if the trial reported was not registered, please comment on this matter on the title page. The registry, registration number, principal investigator's name, and registration date must be stated in the first paragraph of the Methods section of the manuscript. It must also be included on the title page of the manuscript. A number of registries have been approved by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, including http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (the most commonly used registry in the United States), ISRCTN Registry, UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, EudraCT, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, and the Netherlands Trial Register. Registries must be publicly available, and written in English.
D. Observational Studies. Anesthesiology requires explicit statement in manuscripts of whether a data analysis and statistical plan was defined before accessing the research data. See Kharasch ED: Observations and Observational ResearchAnesthesiology. 2019 Jul; 131(1):1-4.
Authors are required to include one of the following sentences in the Methods section of the manuscript that describes this process: A data analysis and statistical plan was (1) written and posted on a publicly accessible server (Clinical Trials.gov or other) before data were accessed; (2) written and filed with a private entity (institutional review board or other) before data were accessed; (3) written, date-stamped (permanent dated electronic signature), and recorded in the investigators' files before data were accessed; or (4) written after the data were accessed. If there was an a priori data analysis and statistical plan (numbers 1 to 3 above), authors are requested and strongly encouraged to include the plan as supplemental digital content at the time of initial manuscript submission. This is for peer review purposes only, not for publication.
E. Sex as a biological variable. Laboratory, clinical, and epidemiologic data provide ample evidence for sex-specific differences in disease and drug response. Authors should review the NIH statement on sex as a biological variable (https://orwh.od.nih.gov/sex-gender/nih-policy-sex-biological-variable). It is the purview of funders to require inclusion of both vertebrate animal and human sexes in research. It is the purview of journals to review the inclusion and require adequate reporting. Consideration of sex as a biologic variable in reporting laboratory animal and human is required by ANESTHESIOLOGY. Animal sex(es) should be included in the Abstract and Methods. If only one sex was studied, specification in the title may be appropriate. Discussion section should address potential implications of sex on results and conclusions, where appropriate. If research or data analysis by sex was not conducted, Discussion section should provide the rationale and discuss any implications for the interpretation. See Vutskits L, Clark JD, Kharasch ED: Reporting laboratory and animal research in Anesthesiology: The importance of sex as a biologic variable. Anesthesiology 2019;131:949-952
- F. Surveys. Anesthesiology welcomes papers based on well done surveys. However, the quality of the survey methodology is often a factor in the Editor-in-Chief's decision. Interested authors should review the material contained in the following editorial: Todd MM, Burmeister LF. Principles of Successful Sample Surveys.Anesthesiology 2003; 99: 1251-1252 Back to top
CME for Authors. The first listed or last listed author of an accepted Anesthesiology manuscript can claim American Medical Association (AMA) PRA Category 1 Credit™ for their publication. The American Society of Anesthesiologists cannot award this credit, but these authors can apply directly to the AMA for 10 credits per article. Please also note that while the AMA charges a nominal amount for the credit application, authors can claim credit on a single application for multiple articles published within the past 6 years.
More information about this opportunity can be found at https://www.ama-assn.org/education/claim-cme-credit-ama under the Direct Credit program or by calling the American Medical Association at 1-800-621-8335.