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. Only manuscripts submitted via the online submission system will be considered. Do not send manuscripts via e-mail. For problems with submissions, contact the Editorial Office. Receipt will be acknowledged by e-mail. Authors should allow approximately 4 weeks for first decision. Authors will be notified if delays occur.
Anesthesiology uses iThenticate plagiarism detection software. 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 (including self-plagiarism).
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
Editorial Decisions: Decisions on submissions are final. Anesthesiology does not allow rejected manuscripts to be resubmitted. See Appeals.
- Role of the Corresponding Author
- Group Authorship
- Group 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
- Presubmission Reviews and Proposals
- Original Investigations
- 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
- Claims of Primacy
- Units of Measurement
- Drug Names and Equipment
- Data Reporting and Statistics
- Patient Identification
- Sources of Compounds
- Language Editing
Anesthesiology follows the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals to define the criteria required for authorship. All authors must have made substantial intellectual contributions, including: a) participating in the design, execution, analysis, and/or interpretation of the work, b) drafting or revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content, c) giving final approval of the version to be published, and d) taking accountability for all aspects of the work, including accuracy and validity of the contents, and ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. All authors should meet all four criteria, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors. Those who do not meet all four criteria should be listed in the Acknowledgments section. Furthermore, the ICMJE recommends that each author should be able to identify the specific contributions of their co-authors. The list of persons who qualify as 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. Manuscripts are received with the understanding that they have been written by the authors; ghostwritten papers are unacceptable (see Cullen D: Ghostwriting in scientific anesthesia journals. Anesthesiology 1997; 87: 195-6). Guest authorship and gift authorship are similarly unacceptable (see Rennie D, Flanagin A: Authorship! authorship! guests, ghosts, grafters, and the two-sided coin [editorial]. JAMA 1994;271:469-71).
Back to top
- Role of the Corresponding Author Anesthesiology takes very seriously the responsible conduct of research. Each manuscript must have a single Corresponding Author who is accountable for the research and the reporting. The Corresponding Author is the one individual 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 gathering of conflict of interest forms and statements, are met and properly completed. 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. Each manuscript must have one and only one designated Corresponding Author. The manuscript will be returned without assessment if more than one author is designated as the corresponding author. 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 signs the cover letter and 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, all members of the group must meet the full criteria for authorship as described above. All members of the group authors must be entered into Editorial Manager to verify their authorship and complete the Copyright Transfer/Disclosure Form when requested. Manuscripts may be held until all authors have verified authorship and confirmed that they have seen the submitted manuscript.
Group authorship requires the same level of participation as principal authorship. Anyone listed as an author must meet all four criteria for authorship, and all others are to be listed as collaborators. An explicit statement as to the exact nature of each author’s participation must be provided; upload this under the submission item Authorship Information. Non-author members of the Group should be listed as Collaborators in the Acknowledgment section. It is important to separately identify Group authors and non-author collaborators. While there is no limit on the number of authors listed in the byline for an original investigation (provided each author meets all authorship criteria), a long author list may not fit in the space for the author byline. In this case, other options include
a. A Research Group name only in the byline and a list of the individual group authors in the article Acknowledgment section along with their affiliations, contributions, and conflict of interest disclosures. In PubMed, the Group name is listed and all authors are listed in the order they appear in the Acknowledgment section.
b. Some named authors in the byline, in combination with a Research Group. Since all members of the Research Group must be qualified authors, and all meet authorship criteria, the byline is Individual Authors A, B, C, etc "and" the Research Group byline. The name of the Research Group and the byline authors and the non-byline authors are listed in the Acknowledgment section at the end of the article, along with their affiliations, contributions, and conflicts of interest disclosures. Non-author members of the Research Group may be designated as Collaborators and listed in the Acknowledgments section of the article. In PubMed, the authors named in the byline and the individual non-byline authors in the Research Group are listed as authors along with the Group Name.
Back to top
- Group Collaborators
Those members of a group that do not meet all of the criteria for authorship may be listed as collaborators provided that they substantially contributed to the work reported in the manuscript. These members will be listed as collaborators in PubMed and in the published article. Collaborator names and degrees should be listed in an appendix. The corresponding author is responsible for completing the acknowledgement 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. Group members listed as collaborators will not be required to complete the Copyright Transfer/Disclosure form.
See a group collaborator example 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.
In 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 being added or removed from the Research Group or Group Collaborators, and each author listed on the byline must independently provided 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 sh/he has informed all co-authors of 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, Prior or Divided 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 Nature Precedings, 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 discourages authors from dividing the results of a single study into multiple papers. Do not submit several small manuscripts; a single comprehensive paper is preferable. If the authors believe that subdivision is appropriate, or if multiple articles may result from the same study, contact the Editor-in-Chief through the Editorial Office. Authors must clearly disclose at submission if another manuscript derived from the same experiment has been published previously or has been or will be submitted to another journal. If a manuscript is part of a larger whole or if the primary analysis has been previously published, this fact must be explicitly stated in the manuscript. It must be noted in the Introduction and Methods and preferably also in the Abstract and Discussion, and the previous publication(s) must be cited.
Back to top
Anesthesiology takes seriously the responsible conduct of research and ethical behavior in scholarly communications. When Anesthesiology has concerns or receives allegations of scientific misconduct, Anesthesiology reserves the right to proceed according to the procedures described below. Anesthesiology 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.
In general, Anesthesiology 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 generally 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 trialsJAMA;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. 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: Burmeister LF. Principles of Successful Sample Surveys.Anesthesiology 2003; 99: 1251-1252
Back to top
- Presubmission Reviews and Proposals
Consideration of a Meta-analysis, Comprehensive Review (narrative or systematic), Clinical Focus Review, Understanding Research Methods, and Special Article for peer review and publication requires a presubmission inquiry and approval for submission. Individuals interested in writing these should submit a proposal through Editorial Manager by selecting "Submit New Manuscript" in the Author Main Menu and then selecting "Pre-submission proposal " from the list of article types.
Authors will be asked to provide the following information during the submission of the proposal:
- the proposed article type;
- a list of the authors (and for reviews, their qualifications, including peer-reviewed manuscripts on the topic of a proposed article);
- a 250-word summary and outline of the proposed manuscript; do not send the full proposed manuscript.
- for Clinical Focus Reviews, Narrative Reviews, Systematic Reviews, Meta-analysis, and Special Articles, authors are asked to identify the three most recent reviews, meta-analyses, or special articles on the topic (if existing) by providing the full citation and PMID number, and to identify objective difference(s) from those prior articles and the proposed article.
NOTE: The person who submits the proposal is to be the same person who will be the designated corresponding author if the proposal is approved for submission; see Role of the Corresponding Author.
Excepting these article types Anesthesiology does not require presubmission approval. The journal editors do not provide presubmission or informal reviews of abstracts or any full manuscripts.