For Authors: Instructions & Policies
All manuscripts submitted to CHEST should be prepared in accordance with our instructions to authors, which reflect the latest “Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publications” of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
If you don't see what you are looking for, you can browse this page by going to your web browsers menu to "Edit" then "Find." Type in the term you are looking for on this page.
Authors are also encouraged view the Editor in Chief's series of short videos clips of frequently asked questions.
BACK TO TOP
CHEST follows the “Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publications” and defines “author” as a person who has participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for all portions of the content. Specifically, an author is a person who meets the following three criteria:
-
has made substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;
-
has drafted the submitted article or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and
-
has provided final approval of the version to be published.
Any person who does not meet all three of the listed criteria does not qualify as an author and should not be designated as an author. The final author lineup and order should be determined by all authors before submission and may not be changed without a written explanation and signed permission of all authors postsubmission.
For reports containing original data, at least one author (eg, the principal investigator) must indicate that (s)he had full access to all the data in the study and that he or she takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis, including and especially any adverse effects. The corresponding author must assume full responsibility for the integrity of the submission as a whole, from inception to published article. CHEST reserves the right to clarify each author’s role, based upon information collected from authors in connection with their submission. For large, randomized, multicenter, controlled trials, different authors may share responsibilities and separately attest to these:
For efficacy data: "Dr. XYZ has personally reviewed the efficacy data, understands the statistical methods employed for efficacy analysis, and confirms an understanding of this analysis, that the methods are clearly described and that they are a fair way to report the results."
For safety data: "Dr. XYZ has personally reviewed the safety data. (S)he understands the statistical methods employed for safety analysis and confirms that (s)he understands this analysis, that the methods are clearly described, and that they are a fair way to report the results." Furthermore, (s)he has personally reviewed the Serious Adverse Events occurring in ≥ 0.1% of participants per treatment group and confirms that these are fairly disclosed and analyzed even in the presence of uncertainty with respect to relationship to treatment."
For study design: "Dr. XYZ confirms that the study objectives and procedures are honestly disclosed. Moreover, (s)he has reviewed study execution data and confirms that procedures were followed to an extent that convinces all authors that the results are valid and generalizable to a population similar to that enrolled in this study."
If a research group is designated as the author of an article, one or more group members who fully meet the above criteria for authorship should be listed in the article's byline, followed by "on behalf of the [name of group]." The other group members should be listed in an acknowledgment section at the end of the article. Acknowledged group members will not be cited in PubMed.
Alternatively, the byline can include the name of the group, followed by an asterisk corresponding to a list that specifies the authors who fully meet the above criteria for authorship and that also mentions the other group members.
The names of individuals who contribute to a manuscript but do not qualify for authorship should be listed (with their written permission) in an Acknowledgments section with a description of their individual contributions. This requirement covers any and all editorial or authorship contributions made on behalf of outside organizations, persons, funding bodies, or persons hired by funding bodies. When a medical writer or editing service was used, their activities and the funding source for these services should be noted.
Communication related to submissions or submission inquiries should come from the corresponding author or principle investigator. Inquiries regarding manuscripts from non-authors, including inquiries from third-party medical writers and commercial medical writing companies, are strongly discouraged and may not receive a reply.
BACK TO TOP
A conflict of interest is a financial or intellectual relationship or other set of circumstances that might affect, or reasonably be perceived by others to affect, an author’s judgment, conduct, or manuscript. When in doubt, disclose.
Each author must report conflicts of interest in two places.
-
Each author should provide a summary conflict of interest statement to be included on the title page of the manuscript. If an author has no conflicts of interest, a statement to this effect should be provided.
-
Once the corresponding author has completed the submission process (including adding all co-authors and e-mail addresses into the appropriate fields, each author will be notified via e-mail that they need to sign into their account in ScholarOne Manuscripts and complete the combined electronic Author Agreement/Conflict of Interest Disclosure form. Accepted manuscripts will not enter production or be scheduled for an issue until all forms for all authors are received.
It is important that conflict of interest is reported in two places. The electronic form completed in ScholarOne Manuscripts serves as the official “signed” (electronically) documentation for the Journal’s records, whereas the summary statement included on the title page of the manuscripts is the statement accessible to the Journal peer reviewers throughout the process and ultimately published in the Acknowledgments section of accepted articles in CHEST. Further, it is important to ensure that the information reported on the form and that disclosed on the title page match exactly. The Editorial Office will review this information and will contact the authors to remedy any discrepancies.
BACK TO TOP
Authors are welcome to submit manuscripts for exclusive publication in CHEST, provided they have not been published nor are under review elsewhere. Once the corresponding author has completed the submission process (and has been assigned a manuscript number), each manuscript author will be notified via e-mail that they need to sign into their ScholarOne Manuscripts account to complete an online copyright form (combined with the conflict of interest disclosure form). Missing forms will delay publication. By submitting to CHEST, each author assigns all of his or her intellectual property rights (including US and international copyrights), subject to the exceptions noted on the form. If a manuscript is rejected, all rights revert to the author. Manuscripts become the permanent property of CHEST on acceptance and may not be published elsewhere, in whole or part, without prior written permission from the Journal.
Studies (or authors) funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) must be deposited into PubMed Central. CHEST submits the final version of all articles (or authors) funded by the NIH to PubMed Central on the authors’ behalf on publication. The article will become publicly accessible through PubMed Central 12 months after the final publication date in a numbered issue of CHEST. On submission of NIH-funded work, authors should respond “Yes” to the NIH-funding question in ScholarOne Manuscripts and include the relevant grant numbers on the title page.
CHEST offers two author-pays open access options that can be selected on submission via ScholarOne Manuscripts. Each open access publication in CHEST provides the following services:
- The article will be made free to view on publication to all users of the CHEST Publications website with a flag denoting open access status; no login credentials or subscription will be necessary for access.
- CHEST will deposit the article into PubMed Central, where it will be indexed and publicly available.
- One of two Creative Commons Licenses will be assigned, depending on the open access option exercised: general open access or Wellcome Trust-compliant open access.
General Open Access. Any author can opt to exercise the general open access option, which is available for a $3,000 fee, payable prior to publication. Articles published under this option will be made free on publication and deposited in PubMed. In addition, these articles will be assigned a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No-Derivatives License (CC BY-NC-ND) in place of the traditional copyright. This allows readers and users of the article to copy and distribute the article free of charge, with acknowledgment of the source, while protecting the content from alteration or modification. Commercial entities are still required to clear rights and permissions through ACCP. Additional fees will apply if open access is requested post-acceptance.
Wellcome Trust-Compliant Open Access. Authors who are funded by the Wellcome Trust are required by the funding body to select this option, which is available for a $5,000 fee prior to publication. Articles published under this option will be made free on publication and deposited in PubMed. In addition, these articles will be assigned a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) in place of traditional copyright. This allows all users of the article to copy, distribute, and/or adapt the work for commercial and noncommercial purposes, provided the user(s) attribute the source material by noting the citation of the original CHEST work.
It is the author's responsibility to comply with all other Wellcome Trust requirements (ie, grant acknowledgment). Additional fees will apply if Wellcome Trust-Compliant Open Access is requested post-acceptance and requests pertaining to articles published prior to April 2013 will not be considered. This option is not available to authors/studies that are not funded by the Wellcome Trust.
CHEST does not consider the reporting of raw data or results, as required by funding bodies such as government institutions or commercial entities, to constitute prior publication. However, on acceptance for publication in CHEST, the article content is embargoed from media coverage and any media coverage should be coordinated through the American College of Chest Physicians. More information is available in the Media/Embargo Policy.
BACK TO TOP
For all human research, authors must ensure that studies are in accordance with the amended Declaration of Helsinki. Authors should indicate in their manuscripts that they have obtained informed consent from patients for the procedure/treatment and for their medical data to be used in a study.
For any studies involving patients (including chart reviews), a statement must be included to the effect that:
This study was conducted in accordance with the amended Declaration of Helsinki. Local institutional review boards or independent ethics committees approved the protocol, and written informed consent was obtained from all patients.
The name of the committee and the approval number should follow this statement in the Methods section. If this is a multicenter study, the list may be provided in a separate Word document to be published as Supplemental Material.
For all animal studies, research must conform to the National Research Council guidelines as well as local and state regulatory principles or requirements.
BACK TO TOP
Original Research articles are posted online two to three weeks after acceptance as the raw, unedited manuscript. These articles are published with a disclaimer that substantive changes may be made between Online First publication and appearance in a final, numbered issue of CHEST. Authors will be given a chance to review and make changes to the manuscript after acceptance (called “First Look” in the ScholarOne Manuscripts system), prior to Online First Publication. Once the corresponding author has approved the “First Look” manuscript, it will be processed for publication in Online First. The article title, author names and affiliations, and abstract will be provided to PubMed for indexing. This information is listed as provided on the author-approved accepted article (prior to proofs). CHEST will not allow changes to the manuscript from the time of Online First publication until page proofs are received. Although Online First articles are indexed in PubMed, publication information will be updated as needed (ie, title change) at the time of final publication in a numbered issue of CHEST. If errors are discovered that require the article to be removed from the website, the authors will be charged for the cost of completing this work.
![---]()
BACK TO TOP
Reuse of any previously copyrighted/published material, including material that appears on a website, within an article submitted to CHEST requires written permission from the copyright holder. Information on how to obtain permission for material published in CHEST is available in Rights & Permissions.
It is the author’s responsibility to obtain written permission and, where necessary, pay any fees to the copyright holder for republication in CHEST.
-
obtain permission for all print, online, and licensed uses from the copyright holder (usually the publisher);
-
provide copies of the permission with the submission (attach it as “supplemental material” in the file upload area in ScholarOne Manuscripts);
-
acknowledge the source in the legend of the figure/table with a numbered reference;
-
provide the full citation in the reference list; and
-
ensure that any language requirements of the copyright holder have been met (eg, “Reproduced with permission from XXX”).
Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are increasingly used to assess different aspects of patients' health status, such as symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). For instance, results of HRQoL are frequently used as a primary outcome measure in studies. Well-developed PRO measures are precise instruments that accurately assess patients' quality of life and by definition need to meet certain standards in terms of development and psychometric validation. Investigators should understand that "even small modifications can compromise the reliability and validity of these instruments. Even modifications that may appear innocent, such as changing the format or layout of the instrument, changing the order of the items, or rewording the instrucitons, may alter the patients' responses. Therefore, it is important to administer only the exact version used in the validation."1
It is not acceptable to adapt, modify in any way, or translate these
instruments into another language without the permission of the
developer(s) of the instrument.1 Lack of copyright does not imply that researchers are allowed to adapt, modify, or translate instruments.
Authors are responsible for obtaining permissions related to any survey instruments or tools relating to PRO used in their submission and for providing CHEST with a written copy of the permission to use (and modify or translate, if applicable) with the manuscript submission (attach it as “supplemental material” in the file upload area in ScholarOne Manuscripts). The methods section of the paper should include a statement noting that permission has been obtained for use of the instrument or tool.2
References:
1. Breugelmans MA. Dangers in using translated medical questionnaires: the importance of conceptual equivalence across languages and cultures in patient-reported outcome measures. Chest. 2009;136(4):1175-1177.
2. Juniper EF. Medical questionnaires are copyrighted to ensure that validity is maintained. Chest. 2009;136(4):951-952.
BACK TO TOP
Authors must omit from their text, tables, figures, and supplemental data any identifying details regarding patients and study participants, including names, initials, date of birth, Social Security numbers, dates, or medical record numbers. If there is a possibility that a patient may be identified in text, tables, figures, or video, authors must obtain written informed permission from the patient, guardian, or next of kin. Copies of the permission must be provided to CHEST prior to publication. If the patient has died or is otherwise unavailable, then permission must be sought from the next of kin. If the next of kin cannot be reached or if other conditions prevail that prevent the author from obtaining permission, and authors have made every reasonable effort to obtain permission, authors may appeal to the Editor in Chief via the cover letter upon submission to consider publication without written permission. Per the Council on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf ) and with proper steps to deidentify the patient, written permission may be waived if 1) public interest considerations outweigh the possible harm, 2) it is impossible to obtain permission, and 3) a reasonable individual would be unlikely to object to publication.
Written patient permission to publish is required for all case-based sections of CHEST, including Case Reports/Series, Chest Imaging and Pathology for Clinicians, Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine Pearls and Ultrasound Corner.
Download the CHEST permission form here.
All authors are responsible for ensuring the submission complies with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act or national equivalent.
BACK TO TOP
When CHEST has concerns, or receives allegations, of scientific misconduct, CHEST reserves the right to proceed according to the procedures described below and to the guidelines issued by the Office of Research Integrity. CHEST recognizes its responsibility to appropriately address concerns and allegations of misconduct. Examples of misconduct include falsification of data, plagiarism (both plagiarism of others and self-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 CHEST and other behaviors specified in the Office of Research Integrity guidelines.
In general, CHEST follows the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) when working to address allegations of misconduct. Concerns or allegations of misconduct will be referred to the CHEST
Ethics Subcommittee and publisher. Involved parties will be contacted to
provide a written explanation of the situation. As needed, CHEST may also contact the institution at which the study was conducted and any other involved journals. CHEST
will attempt to determine whether there was misconduct, and the Editor
in Chief will respond with an appropriate action. Examples of actions
include:
-
Sending a letter of explanation only to the person(s) involved or
against whom the allegation is made. (This response might be appropriate
if the person(s) seemed to have acted with a genuine and innocent
misunderstanding of policy or procedure.)
-
Sending a letter of reprimand to the same person(s), warning of the
consequences of future, similar instances. (This response might be
appropriate if the misunderstanding of policy or procedure appears to be
not entirely innocent.)
-
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. (This response might be appropriate
if actual misconduct seems probable, in which case a formal review and
determination are advisable. CHEST might request a written report of the findings of the investigation and might take further action based on the findings.)
-
Publishing in CHEST a notice of duplicate publication,
“salami” publishing, plagiarism, or other misconduct, if unequivocally
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 CHEST, and informing readers and indexing authorities.
-
Banning an author or authors from publishing any manuscript in CHEST for a specified time period, with notice to the author(s)’ institution.
Submissions will be considered for publication in CHEST only if they are submitted solely to CHEST
and do not overlap with other articles. Any manuscript that has similar
or near similar hypothesis, sample characteristics, results, and
conclusions to a manuscript currently in review, in press, or published
in final form is a duplicate article and is prohibited. CHEST is part of CrossCheck, a multi-publisher initiative to screen published and submitted content for originality. CHEST uses iThenticate software to detect instances of overlapping and similar text in submitted manuscripts.
CHEST also prohibits so-called overlapping or “salami”
publishing that involves slicing of data collected from a single
research process or during a single study period, into different pieces
that form the basis of individual manuscripts published in different
journals or the same journal.1
If any material related to the submission (other than a meeting abstract
or trial registration) has been published previously, is in
preparation, or has been submitted or accepted for publication
elsewhere, authors must provide copies of all such manuscripts and other
materials on submission via ScholarOne Manuscripts (attach as
“supplemental file”), as well as outline the relationship of the data in
the cover letter to avoid any possibility of duplicate publication. For
this purpose, authors must disclose also republication of a paper in
another language and publications in journals with a different reader
base, as well as articles that relate to the same or similar pool of
data described in the submitted article. Although CHEST does not treat publication of an abstract as a duplicate publication, CHEST requires disclosure of the publication on the title page of the submission.
If an image must be manipulated to show detail, the manipulation should
be applied to the entire figure; it is not acceptable to adjust specific
elements of a figure. Any manipulation to the figure must be disclosed
and explained in the caption.
CHEST randomly reviews photographic (halftone) images for
manipulation via image forensic software. Examples of manipulation
include splicing of images so that one image is actually many images,
removal or distortion of pixels so that the data are distorted, and
removal of background data from an image. If the software detects
manipulation, the figure will be sent to an expert reviewer for further
scrutiny. This review may delay publication. In some cases, the figure
may be returned to the author with an explanation on how to correctly
prepare the figure or add information to the legend. In cases where
fraud is discovered, CHEST will impose disciplinary action.
References:
1. Block AJ. Duplicate publication. Chest. 1998;114(6):951.
BACK TO TOP
CHEST follows the American Medical Association Manual of Style1 (10th
ed) in matters of editorial style and usage. All accepted manuscripts
are subject to copyediting for conciseness, clarity, grammar, spelling,
and CHEST style. The corresponding author will receive page
proofs to review before publication. If requests for changes are made
after the authors have returned corrected proofs, a fee will be charged
for additional changes. Care should be exercised in this stage of review
so as to avoid publication of errata or retractions.
Special notes on eponyms with disease names:
Beginning January 1, 2013, CHEST (in addition to many other respiratory journals) will replace the terms "Clara Cell"; and "Clara cell secretory protein"; with "club cell (Clara)"; and "club cell secretory protein (Clara)", respectively.
2 The parenthetic term "(Clara)" will be dropped after its first mention in an article. In agreement with other journals,
CHEST will parenthetically continue to use the term "Clara" for 2 years, at which time it will be dropped. Additional background information about this issue can be found elsewhere.
3
In accordance with other scientific groups, CHEST now uses the term "granulomatosis with polyangiitis (Wegner's)" instead of "Wegner's granulomatosis."4 Additional background information about this issue can be found elsewhere.5
References:
1. JAMA and Archives Journals. American Medical Association Manual of Style: a guide for authors and editors. 10th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press
2. Irwin RS, Augustyn N, French CT, Rice J, Tedeschi V, Welch SJ on behalf of the Editorial Leadership Team. Spread the word about the Journal in 2013: From citation manipulation to invalidation to invalidation of patient-reported outcomes measures to renaming the Clara cell to new Journal features. Chest. 2013;143(1):1-4.
3. Winkelmann A, Noack T. The Clara cell: a "Third Reich eponym."
Eur Resp J. 2010;36:722-727
4. Irwin RS, Augustyn N, French CT, Rice J. Welch SJ. Spread the word about the journal in 2012: From Impact Factor to Plagiarism and Image Falsification Detection Software.
Chest. 2012;141(1):1-4.
5. Falk RJ, Gross WL, Guillenin L et al. Granulomatosis with polyangiitis: an alternative name for Wegner's granulomatosis.
Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70:704
BACK TO TOP
CHEST uses ScholarOne Manuscripts
for manuscript submission and peer review. Submissions received by
e-mail or mail will not be considered. Technical assistance for
ScholarOne Manuscripts is available by phone at +1 434-964-4100, and or
via online support that includes tutorials.
Receipt of a manuscript is acknowledged via e-mail from ScholarOne
Manuscripts. Each submission is assigned a manuscript tracking number
that will appear in the e-mail. This tracking number should be provided
on all correspondence regarding the manuscript. Although all authors are
copied on decision letters, only the corresponding author should
communicate with CHEST regarding the manuscript. Authors can also check the status of submitted manuscripts by logging into the ScholarOne Manuscripts Author Center.
All submissions are subject to peer review. CHEST will send manuscripts to outside reviewers selected from an extensive database. Authors are encouraged (and in the case of Original Research
required) to provide the names of qualified reviewers who have had
experience with the subject matter but who are not affiliated with the
same institution(s) as the author(s). Authors may also suggest names of
individuals who they would prefer not to review their paper. CHEST reserves the right to make the final selection of peer reviewers. CHEST
also reserves the right, at its discretion, to determine the number and
kind of manuscripts sent for review, the number of reviewers, the
reviewing procedures, and the use made of reviewer’s opinions. In
addition to scientific merit, the Editor in Chief reserves the right to
evaluate papers without external peer review. Effort is made to complete
the review process in a timely manner.
BACK TO TOP
CHEST will not consider research and manuscripts that have been supported either directly or indirectly by tobacco companies.
BACK TO TOP
When submitting to CHEST, authors will be asked to separately
upload several distinct files through ScholarOne Manuscripts. The
following list includes the types of files that may be required. More
detailed information on each element is provided in the following
structured and labeled sections.
1. Cover letter (either entered as text or uploaded to the “Cover Letter” area)
2. Manuscript file (uploaded as “Main Document”), inclusive of:
3. Figure files
4. Supplemental material files for online only publication (upload as “Online Content Only”)
5. Permissions for republication or survey use (where applicable, upload as “Supplemental File”)
6. Patient consent for publication (where applicable, upload as “Supplemental File”)
BACK TO TOP
An alphabetical list of all abbreviations used in the paper, followed by
their full definitions, should be provided on submission. Each
abbreviation should be expanded at first mention in the text and noted
parenthetically after expansion. Abbreviations should only be used for
terms that appear more than three times in text. To aid readers, please
use abbreviations sparingly.
BACK TO TOP
For Original Research
studies (clinical trials, interventional studies, cohort studies,
case-control studies, epidemiologic assessments, surveys, systematic
reviews, and meta-analyses), the abstract should consist of the
following sections:
-
Background
-
Methods
-
Results
-
Conclusions
-
Clinical Trial Registration (registrar, website, and registration number, where applicable)
The sections should briefly describe, respectively, the problem being
addressed in the study, how the study was performed (including numbers
of patients or laboratory subjects), the significant results, and what
the authors conclude from the results.
For all other manuscript types requiring abstracts, CHEST requires a narrative (unstructured) abstract. More information is available in Guidance for Specific Article Types.
BACK TO TOP
The acknowledgments section will vary slightly by article type. Possible elements include:
-
Guarantor statement, naming one author who takes
responsibility for (is the guarantor of) the content of the manuscript,
including the data and analysis (Original Research)
-
Author contributions should define the individual
contributions each author made to the development of the manuscript and
should include at minimum the three criteria required for Authorship as defined by CHEST (Original Research)
-
Financial/nonfinancial disclosures should match those provided on the title page
-
Role of the sponsors should detail what input or
contributions, if any, were provided by the funding sources in the
development of the research and manuscript
-
Other contributions
BACK TO TOP
Figures should be provided in the following formats: .tiff, .jpg, or .ppt. NOTE: ScholarOne Manuscripts cannot convert .pptx files; authors should use “Save As” to convert to .ppt files.
Line art, including graphs and drawings without gray tones, should be
created at a resolution of 1200 dpi. Black and white or color
photographs without text or line labeling can be submitted at a
resolution of 300 dpi. Combination figures, such as photographs with
labeling, should be submitted at 600 dpi.
Radiologic or other diagnostic examination figures or other diagnostic
testing figures should have all patient-related numbering (including
test date or medical record numbers) or wording removed prior to
submission. Pathology images are required to be published in color (and
authors must agree to pay for color).
All illustrations must be cited in consecutive numerical order within
the text of the manuscript. A legend for each illustration should be
provided on a separate page of the manuscript, not on the figure itself.
Stains and magnifications for all photomicrographs should be included
in the legend. Any image manipulation (eg, splicing) should be described
in the legend. Permissions for any republished figures and any required patient consent lines for identifiable images also should be noted in the legend.
CHEST encourages the inclusion of color illustrations and will
share the expense of reproduction and printing. The author’s share of
this cost is $500 per color figure. Images may be combined into one
multipart figure (eg, Figure 1A-D) to minimize cost. Authors who cannot
pay their share of the color production charges should not submit color
images. By submitting a color figure, an author agrees to share the
reproduction costs. Because color may be an integral part of the
understanding of a figure, if a color figure is submitted, the Editor in
Chief may, at his discretion, stipulate that payment for color is a
condition for acceptance.
Payment should not be
sent with the submission. On acceptance, the corresponding author will
be sent an e-mail verifying the final cost and will be invoiced before CHEST will proceed with production. Outstanding color charges will delay publication.
BACK TO TOP
Authors are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of citations.
In text, references must be given as superscript numerals, numbered
consecutively in the order in which they appear in the text. If the first (or only) mention of a reference appears in a Table, place the reference number after the Table call out in text. For example, if a reference is in Table 3 and has not been called out any earlier in the text, then the text call out should be, eg, "Table 327...". This will preserve numbering in citation management software.
The full
citations must be listed in numerical order at the end of the text. Each
reference must contain, in order, the following:
-
Authors (last name initials), listing all when
there are up to six; first three followed by “et al” in the case of more
than six authors
-
Title of article (sentence case, no quotation marks)
-
Publication source (italicized), when referring to a journal, the journal name should be abbreviated according to Index Medicus
-
Year of publication
-
Volume number
-
Issue number
-
Page numbers (inclusive)
No spaces should be used from the year of publication through the final
page number. References to published abstracts may be included but must
be noted as such. Please note that no periods should be used after
authors’ initials or after journal abbreviations; however, periods
should be inserted after the publication name and at the end of each
reference. Examples of commonly used reference types are noted below.
1. Sillen MJH, Speksnijder CM, Eterman R-MA, et al. Effects of
neuromuscular electrical stimulation of muscles of ambulation in
patients with chronic heart failure: a systematic review of the
English-language literature. Chest. 2009;136(1):44-61.
2. Barker E, Haverson K, Stokes CR, Birchall M, Baily M. The larynx as
an immunological organ: immunological architecture in the pig as a large
animal model. Clin Exp Immunol. 2006;143(1):6-14.
1. Annane D, Sebille V, Charpentier C, et al. Effect of treatment with
low doses of hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone on mortality in patients
with septic shock. JAMA. In press. doi:10.1001/jama.288.7.862
1. Shields TW, LoCicero J III, Reed CE, Feins RH. General Thoracic Surgery. 7th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009:200-232.
1. Stone AC, Klinger JR. The right ventricle in pulmonary hypertension. In: Hill NS, Farber HW, eds. Pulmonary Hypertension. New York, NY: Humana Press; 2008:93-126.
1. Garg N, Garg G, Christensen G, Singh A. Acute coronary syndrome
caused by coronary artery mycotic aneurysm due to methicillin-resistant
staphylococcus aureus [abstract]. Chest. 2008;134(suppl):1001S.
For assistance in formatting other types of references, please refer to the American Medical Association Manual of Style.1
References:
1. JAMA and Archives Journals. American Medical Association Manual of Style: a guide for authors and editors. 10th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
BACK TO TOP
Authors may submit supplemental material (ie, material that will be
published only with the online version of the journal) if it enhances a
study. The main text must stand alone, and the use of supplemental
material should be judicious. The same standards for ethics, copyright,
permissions, and publication quality for the full-text article apply to
all supplemental material. Tables and figures meant for print should be
integrated with the main manuscript. The inclusion of a single table
and/or figure as supplemental material is not acceptable; that element
should be integrated into the text. References in supplemental material
should be numbered consecutively beginning with 1; if a reference
appears in the main article, it must also be included in the
supplemental material and will likely have a different reference number.
Supplemental material should be thought of distinctly in this regard.
If any of the material included as supplemental material has been
previously published, the authors are responsible for obtaining the
required permissions and attributing the source material.
Appendices will no longer appear in CHEST articles, but may be
included as supplemental material, labeled e-Appendix. Lists of study
participants, multicenter institutional review board data, and the like
are appropriate for e-Appendices.
Each component of the supplemental material should be called out in the
text of the article. Authors should not intersperse supplemental
material consecutively with material for the print edition. The
following convention should be used for labeling and numbering material:
-
e-Table: number as e-Table 1, e-Table 2, etc
-
e-Figure: number as e-Figure 1, e-Figure 2, etc
-
e-Appendix: number as e-Appendix 1, e-Appendix 2, etc
-
Audio: number as Audio 1, Audio 2, etc
-
Video: number as Video 1, Video 2, etc (note, if shorter videos are combined into a single file, label each portion, eg, clip 1, clip 2, etc.
Example: The distribution of missed bronchoscopy skills data points
across centers and bronchoscopy milestones are depicted in e-Figure 1.
The manuscript title, author list, and heading “Supplemental Material”
should be included at the beginning of each file. The following formats
can be uploaded as “Online Content Only” in ScholarOne Manuscripts:
-
Video: Quicktime (.mov), Windows media (.wmv),
Audio Video Interleave (.avi), animated GIF (.gif), .mpeg. All movie
clips should be provided at the desired size and length (10 MB or 5 min
maximum). Before submitting, authors should verify that clips are
viewable in Quicktime or Windows Media Player. In addition, a brief text
description should be provided in a word processing document explaining
the video. Authors are encouraged to supply a still image of the video
file for inclusion as reference in the print version of the article.
-
Audio: .mp3, .mp4, .wav, .au. In addition, a brief
text description should be provided in a word processing document
explaining the audio file.
-
Tables: Because CHEST now typesets all tables as supplemental material, they must be provided as Word files. The total size of the document cannot exceed 8.5” x 11” inches.
-
Figures: .tiff, .png, high-resolution .pdf, .jpeg,
and .gif. One word processing file should be provided that contains
brief captions for all figures.
-
Text: Microsoft Word (.doc, .docx), .rtf, and .txt files.
![---]()
BACK TO TOP
Tables should be self-explanatory and should not duplicate text
material. They must be numbered and cited in consecutive order in the
text. Each must have a succinct title, column and row headings, and
(where appropriate) a legend describing abbreviations and lettered
footnotes at the bottom of the table. Tables should not contain any
shading or special symbols and any special formatting (bold, italics)
must be explained in the legend. Tables consisting of more than 10
columns are unacceptable and will not be published. Tables should be provided as word processing documents, not in a spreadsheet file format or as an image file. Tables may be added at the end of the main document file.
Permissions for any republished tables should be noted in the legend.
See References for guidance on how to number and cite references that 1) appear only in tables or 2) are first cited in tables that are called out before other references.
Tables used to describe or compare literature should include a column
with the following information from the source publication: lead author
last name, year of publication, and a numbered citation that corresponds
to the full reference in the manuscript reference list.
BACK TO TOP
Headings Within Articles
No more than 8 headings per article. Each heading can consist of only 5 words, including words such as a, an, the, and, and.
Headings should be explanatory, but there is no need to repeat the title in every heading.
Sample Original
Abstract | What Is Interdisciplinary Collaboration? | Why Should We Embrace the Concept of Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Delivering Health Care? | Can an Interdisciplinary Collaborative Model of Critical Care Be Successfully Implemented in a Large Academic Medical Center, and Will It Be Associated With Favorable Outcomes? | What Is Our Story? | What Was the New Philosophy and Model of Critical Care That Emerged? | What Were the Building Blocks of Our Critical Care Model? | What Were the Outcomes Associated With the Implementation of Our Interdisciplinary Collaborative Model of Critical Care? | Summary | Acknowledgment | References
Sample Revised
Abstract | Interdisciplinary Collaboration | Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Health-Care Delivery | Implementing Collaborative Models | Our Story | New Philosophy and Model | Building Blocks | Outcomes | Summary | Acknowledgement | References
The Guidance for Specific Article Types section provides more detail on how to format the text.
BACK TO TOP
The title page should be submitted as a word processing file and should include the following elements:
-
Word counts for the text and abstract in the upper left-hand corner
-
Title and short title/running head (of 50 characters or less)
-
Author list, showing all names in the order and
format that they are to appear on publication. Also, include any middle
initials and the highest degree obtained, as well as institutional
affiliations. NOTE: Complete
author information, including names, e-mail addresses, and institutional
affiliations must also be entered in ScholarOne Manuscripts to
facilitate the collection of the required forms.
-
Corresponding author information, with full mailing address and e-mail address (will appear on publication)
-
Summary conflict of interest statements for each author (or a statement indicating no conflicts exist for the specified author[s])
-
Funding information, including any NIH grant numbers where applicable
-
Notation of prior abstract publication/presentation, including the name, date, and location of the relevant meeting
BACK TO TOP
In addition to following the general manuscript preparation
instructions, authors should refer to the specific instructions for the
type of article they are submitting.
|
Section Title
|
Consider Unsolicited (Y/Na)
|
Abstract (wd max)
|
Textd (wd max)
|
Reference (no. max)
|
Color Payment
|
|
Ahead of the Curve
|
N
|
250
|
2,500
|
50
|
2 free, then $500/per
|
|
Case Reports
|
Y
|
150
|
750
|
20
|
$500/per
|
|
Case Series
|
Y
|
150
|
1,600
|
20
|
$500/per
|
|
Chest Imaging & Pathology for Clinicians
|
Y
|
none
|
1,600
|
20
|
2 free, then $500/per
|
|
Clinical Practice Guidelines
|
Y
|
250
|
tbd
|
tbd
|
tbd
|
|
Commentary
|
Y
|
250
|
2,500
|
50
|
$500/per
|
|
Consensus Statementsa
|
N
|
250c
|
3,800
|
75
|
$500/per
|
|
Contemporary Reviews in Critical Care Medicine
|
N
|
250
|
3,500
|
75
|
$500/per
|
|
Contemporary Reviews in Sleep Medicine
|
N
|
250
|
3,500
|
75
|
$500/per
|
|
Correspondence
|
Y
|
none
|
400
|
5
|
$500/per
|
|
Editorials
|
N
|
none
|
1,000
|
12
|
$500/per
|
|
Errata
|
Y
|
None
|
400
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
|
Medical Ethics
|
Y
|
250
|
3,500
|
75
|
$500/per
|
|
Original Research
|
Y
|
250b
|
2,500
|
75
|
$500/per
|
|
Point/Counterpoint Editorials
|
N
|
none
|
1,000
|
12
|
$500/per
|
|
Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine Pearls
|
Y
|
none
|
1,200
|
10
|
$500/per
|
|
Recent Advances in Chest Medicine
|
N
|
250
|
3,500
|
75
|
$500/per
|
|
Retractions
|
N
|
none
|
400
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
|
Special Featuresa
|
Y
|
250
|
3,500
|
75
|
$500/per
|
|
Topics in Practice Management
|
N
|
250
|
2,500
|
50
|
$500/per
|
|
Translating Basic Research Into Clinical Practice
|
N
|
250
|
2,500
|
50
|
2 free, then $500/per
|
|
Ultrasound Corner
|
Y
|
none
|
1,200
|
10
|
free
|
aThese article types are solicited, but authors with ideas for topics are encouraged to contact CHEST with their proposal via the Contact Us form.
bOriginal Research articles must have a structured abstract.
cConsensus Statements must also be submitted with an executive summary.
dText word counts exclude abstract, references, figure legends, and tables.
eFor case reports or commentaries follow instructions for those sections.
BACK TO TOP
|
Article Element
|
Requirements
|
|
Abstract length
|
250 words, narrative format
|
|
Text length
|
2,500 words
|
|
Reference count
|
50 references
|
|
Color
|
2 free + $500 per figure for each additional figure
|
Ahead
of the Curve papers serve to provide glimpses into research that may,
in coming years, impact clinicians. They will be published in the Commentary Section, under the subtopic of "Ahead of the Curve." Topics in this section are developed
and invited by the CHEST Section Editors and Editor in Chief. Authors with suggestions for a topic are encouraged to contact CHEST.
BACK TO TOP
|
Article Element
|
Requirements
|
|
Abstract length
|
150 words, narrative format
|
|
Text length
|
750 words, for a single report; 1,600 words for a series
|
|
Reference count
|
20 references
|
|
Color
|
$500 per figure
|
|
Format
|
Either (1) Introduction, Case Reports, Discussion; or (2) Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results
|
|
Other
|
Written patient permission is required for publication
|
Case reports for CHEST are meant to describe a new entity,
mechanism, or presentation of a disease state. All submissions to this
section must be novel and/or unique. Any manuscripts submitted for
publication should provide new insights for clinicians. In addition to
standard case reports and case series, CHEST will also consider:
Case reports do not need institutional review board approval, but authors must preserve patient privacy and follow the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act or national equivalent rules in writing up the case. On acceptance, CHEST will require submission of written patient permission for publication.
It is acceptable to submit case reports to CHEST that have been
presented at meetings and congresses. This information should be
disclosed on the title page and provided in the references.
BACK TO TOP
|
Article Element
|
Requirements
|
|
Abstract length
|
None
|
|
Text length
|
1,600 words (of which clinical, radiologic, and pathologic findings and discussion should be 500 words each)
|
|
Reference count
|
20 references
|
|
Color
|
2 free + $500 per figure for every additional figure
|
|
Format
|
Case
Presentation (with distinct Clinical, Radiologic, and Pathologic
Findings subsections); Q: What is the Diagnosis; A: Diagnosis;
Discussion (with distinct Clinical, Radiologic, and Pathologic
Discussion subsections); Conclusion
|
|
Other
|
Written patient permission is required for publication
|
Chest Imaging and Pathology for Clinicians is designed to aid readers in
mastering the fundamentals of interpretation and ordering of chest
imaging modalities, CHEST publishes case-based articles with
characteristic chest imaging and related pathology. Pathology must be
included in all cases submitted.
Selection of images should reflect state-of-the-art image quality.
Pictures of plain chest radiographs and CT scans taken with a digital
camera will not be accepted. For example, cases of interstitial lung
disease must be imaged with high-resolution CT techniques. Similarly, CT
or MR studies related to vascular disease must be performed with
contrast enhancement. Cases illustrating advanced imaging techniques
such as volumetric rendered images, or virtual endoscopy are also
welcome, provided that these techniques prove critical to radiologic
diagnosis.
The format for this series is very important. Authors are encouraged to read the following instructions carefully:
-
Title, should include a short summary of the presenting feature, but not the diagnosis (ie, Dyspnea with slow-growing mass of the left hemithorax)
-
Case Presentation, should include the following sections in sequence without the use of subheadings and without giving away the diagnosis:
-
Clinical findings, should mention the relevant positives and
negatives while avoiding detailed description of hospital course
-
Radiologic findings, briefly detailing the plain chest
radiograph (no corresponding figure need be submitted) and describing in
detail the additional imaging studies performed, emphasizing findings
that point to the diagnosis
-
Pathologic findings, should be described in detail and should focus on correlations with the radiologic findings
-
What is the diagnosis? Alternative questions may also be included (ie, What study should be conducted next?) in addition to the diagnosis question.
-
Diagnosis: XXX, should also include the answer to any other questions posed
-
Discussion, should include the following sections in sequence with the use of subheadings
-
Clinical discussion, should illuminate how the
clinical findings tie in with the diagnosis, addressing the typical and
atypical case features. Authors are encouraged to highlight the clinical
features that may alert the clinician to the diagnosis.
-
Radiologic discussion, should highlight
specific findings from chest radiographs and CT, PET, MR scans. Authors
are encouraged to highlight findings that exclude diagnosis and
elaborate on the use of particular modalities.
-
Pathologic discussion, should highlight
pathologic patterns of lung involvement that correspond to patterns seen
on chest imaging, and the pathologic differential diagnosis of the
disease under discussion should be presented. Special staining
techniques that may allow the diagnosis to be established should be
addressed.
-
Conclusion, should enumerate the patient’s clinical course and treatment given.
![---]()
BACK TO TOP
|
Article Element
|
Requirements
|
|
Executive summary
|
Provided
in bold text and including one to two paragraphs of introduction,
followed by a summary of the data and a bulleted list of all
recommendations and suggestions included in the document
|
|
Abstract length
|
250 words, structured format
|
|
Text length
|
To be negotiated with CHEST
|
|
Reference count
|
To be negotiated with CHEST
|
|
Color
|
$500 per figure
|
Clinical Practice Guidelines are generated by the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) under a well-defined development process. Committees will work closely with the Section Editor of Guidelines and Consensus Statements and the Editor in Chief of CHEST in developing guideline articles intended for submission to CHEST.
Authors and organizations outside of the ACCP are discouraged from submitting guidelines to CHEST. If the authors strongly believe that CHEST is the proper forum for publishing these types of papers, authors should:
-
Review the existing guidelines from ACCP to ensure there is no overlap with existing ACCP guidelines;
-
Contact the Editor in Chief of CHEST before embarking on such projects; and
-
Be willing to use the same grading system, format, and development process followed by ACCP guidelines. CHEST will likely have any such submissions evaluated by the relevant ACCP Committees as part of the review process.
BACK TO TOP
|
Article Element
|
Requirements
|
|
Abstract length
|
250 words, narrative format
|
|
Text length
|
2,500 words
|
|
Reference count
|
50 references
|
|
Color
|
$500 per figure
|
Commentaries are solicited manuscripts that promote a specific point of view. CHEST will consider unsolictied commentary submissions, but authors must be aware that at any given time CHEST also has a long list of pending invited topics. Authors are encouraged to contact CHEST with a proposal on the topic prior to writing or submitting any commentaries.
BACK TO TOP
|
Article Element
|
Requirements
|
|
Executive summary
|
Provided
in bold text and including one to two paragraphs of introduction,
followed by a summary of the data and a bulleted list of all suggestions
included in the document
|
|
Abstract length
|
250 words, structured format
|
|
Text length
|
3,800 words
|
|
Reference count
|
70 references
|
|
Color
|
$500 per figure
|
Consensus Statements are developed by the American College of Chest
Physicians (ACCP) and follow a detailed development process. CHEST
has a designated Section Editor for consensus statements and clinical
practice guidelines. Committees will work closely with the Section
Editor of Guidelines and Consensus Statements and the Editor in Chief in
the development of the topic, manuscript, and submission for CHEST peer review.
Authors and organizations working outside of the ACCP are generally discouraged from submitting consensus statements to CHEST. If the authors strongly believe that CHEST is the proper forum for publishing a consensus statement, authors should first:
-
Review the existing ACCP consensus statements to ensure there is no overlap with existing statements;
-
Contact the Editor in Chief of CHEST before embarking on such projects; and
-
Be willing to use the same grading system, development process, and format followed by ACCP-developed consensus statements.
CHEST will likely have any such submissions evaluated by the relevant ACCP Committees as part of the review process.
-
Title, should begin with the phrase “American College of Chest Physicians Consensus Statement on …” followed by the topic name
-
Executive summary, should be provided in bold text
and include one to two paragraphs of introduction, followed by a summary
of the data and a bulleted list of all suggestions included in the
document. At the discretion of the Journal and depending on the length
of the full article, the Executive Summary may appear in print with the
full article available online only.
-
Abstract, should be structured, utilizing labels (Background, Methods, Results, and Conclusions)
-
Introduction, should include an explicit statement
that the opinions given are based on expert consensus and should include
the following disclaimer: “these suggestions should not be used for
performance measurement or for competency purposes because they are not
evidence-based as outlined by the ACCP Health and Science Policy
Committee.”
-
Materials and Methods, should describe how the
literature search was performed and the method used to achieve
consensus. Formal methods, such as the Delphi technique, are preferred
to informal techniques (eg, vote). If questionnaires are used to derive
consensus, questions are to be validated using appropriate and accepted
statistical methods.
-
Body, should be organized by suggestions, including
background, a brief review of the relevant data, the panel’s
suggestions, and any caveats or critical minority opinions. Future
therapies/research should be indicated for each section
-
References
-
Tables, should adhere exactly to CHEST table requirements
NOTE: For consensus statements, it is important that certain terminology
be used to denote evidence based on the quality of evidence and type of
literature reviewed. The phrase “we suggest” may be used in consensus
statements only if there are data from the literature to support a
suggestion. The phrases “evidence-based,” “guideline,” and “we
recommend” are reserved for evidence-based guidelines and should not be
used in consensus statements.
BACK TO TOP
|
Article Element
|
Requirements
|
|
Abstract length
|
250 words, narrative format
|
|
Text length
|
3,500 words
|
|
Reference count
|
75 references
|
|
Color
|
$500 per figure
|
The purpose of the Contemporary Reviews in Sleep Medicine and Critical
Care sections is to publish concise reviews on important topics in
medicine. These are to be state-of-the-art reviews, not exhaustive
dissertations. There should be a summary of the field as well as a
discussion of the most recent advances in the text, and if justifiable, a
summary table that lists management advances based upon randomized
controlled clinical trials. Topics in this section are developed and
invited by the CHEST Section Editors and Editor in Chief. Authors with suggestions for a topic are encouraged to contact CHEST.
BACK TO TOP
|
Article Element
|
Requirements
|
|
Abstract length
|
None
|
|
Text length
|
400 words
|
|
Reference count
|
5 references
|
|
Color
|
$500 per figure
|
|
Other
|
Single figure and table maximum, supplemental material may be included.
|
The correspondence section is primarily intended for the clarification and edification of articles published in CHEST.
While letters that describe research in preliminary terms and
announcements of general interest are uncommonly published as letters.
It is up to the discretion of the Editor in Chief whether any
Correspondence is sent for external peer review and whether to accept
any letter for publication.
All letters commenting on previous articles should strive to provide
constructive and respectful comments of the original work. Any
correspondence discussing recent CHEST articles should include a
short original title that does not duplicate the title of the article.
Authors should include the full citation to the complete article in the
reference list. For letters responding to articles published to the Online First section, CHEST will hold publication until the final version of the article is published in a numbered issue of CHEST.
All accepted letters will be sent to the corresponding author of the
original article with an invitation to submit a response for
publication.
Authors are asked to submit all replies to letters on their work within
four weeks of receiving the invitation. Authors should never correspond
directly with the authors of correspondence. The replying author should
also include the full reference to their original work and should submit
the same conflict of interest information relevant to the original work. CHEST reserves the right to update the conflict of interest line in this regard as needed.
CHEST will occasionally consider correspondence that serves to
announce matters of importance to the pulmonary, critical care, and
sleep medicine community.
Reference:
Foote MA. Comments on writing letters to the editor: moving from duels and fencing to belles lettres. Chest. 2010;138(1):228-230.
BACK TO TOP
|
Article Element
|
Requirements
|
|
Abstract length
|
None
|
|
Text length
|
1,000 words
|
|
Reference count
|
12 references
|
|
Color
|
$500 per figure
|
Editorials are invited by the Editor in Chief.
BACK TO TOP
Errata are published to communicate corrections necessary to previously
published versions of articles. All errata are indexed by PubMed and
attached to the original article citation. In addition to publishing an
erratum, CHEST will consider correcting the online version of
the published article, but the author of the original article will be
required to pay a fee to cover the cost of the postproduction changes.
To request a correction to a published article, authors should contact CHEST, providing details of the error, including the complete article citation, location of the error and corrected text. CHEST will draft a correction notice, and the authors will be required to sign off on a proof prior to publication. CHEST will publish corrections in the next available issue and will link the correction to the original article.
BACK TO TOP
|
Article Element
|
Requirements
|
|
Abstract length
|
250 words, narrative format
|
|
Text length
|
3,500 words
|
|
Reference count
|
75 references
|
|
Color
|
$500 per figure
|
Topics in this section are developed and invited by the CHEST Section Editors and Editor in Chief. Authors with suggestions for a topic are encouraged to contact CHEST.
BACK TO TOP
|
Article Element
|
Requirements
|
|
Abstract length
|
250 words, structured format, include clinical trial information for randomized controlled trials
|
|
Text length
|
2,500 words
|
|
Reference count
|
75 references
|
|
Color
|
$500 per figure
|
|
Format
|
Text should include: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions
|
|
Acknowledgments
|
Author guarantor statement and contributions required
|
Most Original Research manuscripts must include a statement relating to
institutional review board (or equivalent) approval in the “Materials
and Methods” section. CHEST requires that authors include the
committee name and approval number. In multicenter studies, the list of
relevant committees and approval numbers may be included as an e-Appendix. See more information on IRB approval here.
CHEST defines a randomized controlled trial (RCT) as “any
research study that prospectively assigns human participants or groups
of humans to one or more health-related interventions to evaluate the
effects on health outcomes.” Authors preparing RCTs for submission to CHEST should follow the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) checklist and must include a CONSORT flowchart as Figure 1. Templates for the generation of CONSORT flowcharts are available online.
In addition to following CONSORT, CHEST requires investigators
to register their clinical trials in an approved public trials registry.
Approved public trials registries are those that meet the criteria
established by the World Health Organization (WHO). To register a trial, authors must submit the details directly to any one of the WHO primary registries. CHEST
reserves the right to reject papers if it deems the disclosure at the
registry to be incomplete. An IRB statement is not a substitute for an
approved clinical trial registration.
Purely observational studies (those in which the assignment of the
medical intervention is not at the discretion of the investigator) do
not require registration.
Authors preparing systematic reviews and meta-analyses for submission to CHEST should follow the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) checklist and must include a PRISMA flow diagram as Figure 1 on submission.
Investigators who administer surveys and questionnaires as part of their study should obtain copyright permission if needed; no surveys should be adapted without the permission of the of the developer. Any unapproved changes in how PRO instruments are used or approved changes that have not been psychometrically studied and found to be reliable and valid will invalidate the results.
Studies based on surveys or questionnaires should report on data that have
been collected within two years of submission, include supporting
reliability and validity data, and have response rates of at least 60%. All survey-based studies should describe the method used to achieve the response rate (eg, Dillman's tailored design method) and should provide a convincing rationale for why lower response rates provide
important and generalizable information. Surveys with a response rate of less than 60% may be rejected. Nonrespondents should be
characterized well enough to allow for assessment of potential for
nonresponse. Authors are encouraged to report outcome rates for most
surveys using standardized definitions and metrics (eg, those proposed
by the American Association for Public Opinion Research. This information must be detailed in the methods section.
The Equator Network
provides checklists for other types of studies such as the STROBE
(Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology)
statement. Checklists are also available for cohort, case-control, and
cross-sectional studies, and authors are encouraged to follow these.
CHEST endorses the recently published HEART Group Statement1 calling for better matching language in Original Research to the evidence found in different study designs.2 In short, in observational studies investigators should use descriptive statements such as "we observed a lower risk" rather than a more definitive statement such as "reduced the risk by" that are more appropriate to RCTs.
1. Editors of Heart Group Journals. Statement on matching language to the type of evidence used in describing outcomes data. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(23):2420.
2. Kohli P, Cannon CP. The importance of matching language to type of evidence: Avoiding the pitfalls of reporting outcomes data. Clin Cardiol. 2012:35:714-717.
BACK TO TOP
Poems should not exceed 350 words, should not have been previously
published, and should relate to concerns of health-care providers,
patients and families, and medicine. Poems should not violate patient privacy (ie, they should be HIPAA compliant). Physicians should refrain from directly referencing specific identifiable situations in their poems. In case of doubt about appropriate content, check with your institution. Poems that have been previously
published will be returned to the authors.
Submissions to the Pectoriloquy Section should be sent via e-mail to poetrychest@aol.com
for review and preliminary acceptance by the Section Editor, Michael
Zack, MD, FCCP. Authors of poems that Dr. Zack has approved will be
asked to submit the final version to ScholarOne Manuscripts. Authors
will be required to complete an Author Agreement form transferring
copyright to CHEST. They will also be asked to provide two or
three sentences about themselves and about their poem. Final acceptance
for publication rests with the Editor in Chief.
All poems published in CHEST are free online, with PDF versions available for downloading.
![---]()
BACK TO TOP
Point/Counterpoint Editorials are submitted in two stages, each with
distinct requirements: the point and counterpoint pieces have longer
word limits. The rebuttals are intended to be more succinct.
Point/Counterpoint:
|
Article Element
|
Requirements
|
|
Abstract length
|
None
|
|
Text length
|
1,300 words
|
|
Reference count
|
20 references
|
|
Figure/table limits
|
3 total tables and figures (not 3 of each)
|
|
Color
|
$500 per figure
|
Rebuttals:
|
Article Element
|
Requirements
|
|
Abstract length
|
None
|
|
Text length
|
500 words
|
|
Reference count
|
7 references
|
|
Figure/table limits
|
1 figure or table
|
|
Color
|
$500 per figure
|
Point/Counterpoint Editorials are invited by the Editor in Chief. Authors with suggestions for a topic are encouraged to contact CHEST.
BACK TO TOP
|
Article Element
|
Requirements
|
|
Abstract length
|
None
|
|
Text length
|
1,200 words (of which case presentation should be 150 to 250 words, with the discussion 850 words, excluding listing of pearls)
|
|
Reference count
|
<5 - 10 references listed under a heading of "Suggested Readings." List in chronological order. No citations in text.
|
|
Color
|
$500 per figure
|
|
Format
|
See Below
|
|
Other
|
Written patient permission is required for publication
|
Manuscripts for this section are designed to present a case, pose a
question, provide the answer, and summarize the main teaching points as Pearls.
-
Title, should include a short summary of the presenting feature, but not the diagnosis
-
History, provide the recent clinical presentation with relevant past medical history. Provide enough information regarding relevant positives and negatives to allow construction of a reasonable differential diagnosis.
-
Physical Examination Findings, should give the
patient’s vital signs and other physical findings labeled by organ
system (eg, chest: bibasilar rales; cardiac: grade II/VI holosystolic
murmur at the apex radiating to the axilla; abdomen: non-tender without
organomegaly).
-
Diagnostic Studies, should list all of the relevant normal and abnormal studies required to construct a reasonable differential diagnosis: hemogram, blood chemistry, urine studies, arterial blood gases,
microbiology results, tissue biopsy studies, miscellaneous studies (ECG,
esophageal motility studies, etc), radiographic studies, polysomnographic studies. Authors should
place normal values in parentheses when referring to unusual test
results or values that have different normal ranges between
laboratories.
-
What is the diagnosis? Additional questions may also be included (ie, What study should be conducted next?) in addition to the diagnosis question. Alternative questions may focus on management alone when a manuscript does not present a diagnostic question (eg, end-of-life management issues).
-
Diagnosis: XXX, state the diagnosis and the answers to any additional questions posed in the preceding "What is the diagnosis?" Do not provide explanatory text here but just mention the answers.
-
Discussion, using the present tense, present a clear discussion of the clinical condition that flows clearly from one topic to another. Most manuscripts should cover sequentially the topics of epidemiology, pathophysiology/etiology, clinical manifestations, treatment and outcomes. Exceptions, such as manuscripts on end-of-life decision-making, should retain a clearly organized sequence of topics. Avoid stating the findings or opinions of others (eg, Jones and Smith reported. . .); instead, authors should synthesize the literature and state their views on the topic.
- Clinical Course, should take the general discussion
back to the specific patient presented, informing readers how the diagnosis was established, how the patient
was managed and what outcomes occurred.
-
Pearls, 3 to 5 important teaching points extracted from the Discussion. Pearls should represent concise, specific and clinically useful information rather than general statements of fact.
-
Suggested readings, should be listed in
chronological order with the most recent first and include a mix of classic and recent journal or
book citations. References to general medical or nursing textbooks
should be avoided.
Figures are only needed for the case presentation. In discussing figures
in the case report, simply refer to their presence when the findings
are sufficiently obvious to challenge the reader. If the finding is
subtle and difficult to detect, the abnormality can be described in the
case report, but in describing the figure do not provide the diagnosis or the answer to the question you will pose in the manuscript. When not mentioned in the case report, the abnormality in
the figure should be discussed in the body of the discussion on the
following page when referring in general to the condition and in the section on clinical course when providing follow-up for the patient presented.
NOTE: Pathology figures must be provided in color, and authors must
agree to pay for their share of the color ($500 per figure).
Sample: Kyle R. Brownback, MD; Michael S. Crosser, MD; Steven Q. Simpson, MD. A 49-Year-Old Man With Chest Pain and Fever After Returning From France. Chest. 141(6):1618-1621.
BACK TO TOP
|
Article Element
|
Requirements
|
|
Abstract length
|
250 words, narrative format
|
|
Text length
|
3,500 words
|
|
Reference count
|
75 references
|
|
Color
|
$500 per figure
|
Recent Advances in Chest Medicine are state-of-the-art concise reviews
intended to frame a topic and focus on the new developments in this
field in the past 2 to 4 years. The audience is intended to be
clinicians and clinician-scientists, with emphasis on information that
will inform practice. Topics in this section are developed and invited
by the CHEST Section Editors and Editor in Chief. Authors with suggestions for a topic are encouraged to contact CHEST.
BACK TO TOP
The main purpose of retractions is to correct the literature. According to the Committee on Publication Ethics, acceptable reasons for retraction include:
-
Clear evidence that findings are unreliable (either as a result of misconduct or honest error);
-
The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission, or justification;
-
It constitutes plagiarism; or
-
It reports unethical research.
In cases in which one of the above situations arises, authors are required to contact CHEST to explain the situation. Similarly, if CHEST learns of scientific misconduct and believes that an article must be retracted, the Editorial Office will contact all authors.
Published retractions will take the form of a letter, signed by all
authors of the original work. The title of the letter will be “Notice of
Retraction of…” followed by the full title of the original publication.
The letter will include the details on why the article is being
retracted and will include the full publication information of the
original article both in a parenthetical notation and as a reference.
Prior to publication, all authors will be required to submit the Author
Agreement and Conflict of Interest Disclosure form. All retractions will
be indexed in PubMed and attached to the original article citation.
BACK TO TOP
|
Article Element
|
Requirements
|
|
Abstract length
|
250 words, narrative format
|
|
Text length
|
3,500 words
|
|
Reference count
|
75 references
|
|
Color
|
$500 per figure
|
Special Features are solicited reviews that do not fit well into other categories. NOTE: Systematic reviews should be submitted as Original Research. CHEST will consider unsolicited Special Feature submissions, but authors must be aware that at any given time CHEST also has a long list of pending invited topics. Authors are encouraged to contact CHEST with a proposal on the topic prior to the writing or submission of any Special Feature articles.
BACK TO TOP
Although CHEST will consider supplements sponsored by third
parties for publication, it will publish only those supplements that
advance the field or provide information that will significantly impact
patient care in a novel way.
-
Proposal: A complete draft table of contents,
inclusive of titles, proposed authors, article lengths, and a brief
description of what will be covered should be submitted to CHEST
prior to the development of any further materials. Funding sources
should also be disclosed. The material covered should have a broad
interest to one or more constituents served by CHEST and the
American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP). (eg, pulmonologists,
critical care physicians, and cardiovascular or thoracic surgeons). The
Editor in Chief will make a preliminary determination as to whether the
proposal is of interest to CHEST. Final manuscripts will be submitted to peer review, and no guarantee of acceptance can be made.
-
Funding: Supplements must have a commitment of
funding, ideally from a nongovernmental organization, philanthropic
foundation, or government-funded health-care body. The supporting
organization shall not in any way dictate or impact the editorial
content of the supplement. No title or article shall have the appearance
of a conflict of interest, paid advertisement, or proprietary study.
The Editor in Chief will make such determinations. Supplements funded by
single commercial entities are strongly discouraged and may not receive
approval.
-
Draft Manuscripts: Manuscripts should be written by the named authors. Ghost authorship is not permitted. Any editorial assistance and/or writing support should be noted in the acknowledgments
of each article, as should the source of funding for this assistance.
Typically, one or more of the organizers of the supplement will provide a
preliminary review of all the papers in a supplement for suitability of
content, initial quality control, and adherence to agreed-on format
(the format will be a coordinated effort of the supplement organizers
and CHEST). They will work with authors before papers are
formally submitted to the Journal. Once the organizers have met their
own standards for submission, they will provide the CHEST Editorial Office with a list of manuscripts, authors, and contact information for a Corresponding Author for each manuscript.
-
Peer Review: A designated supplement material receipt date will be set by the CHEST Editorial Office. All manuscripts and materials must reach the Editorial Office by that date. CHEST
will contact all corresponding authors with instructions on finalizing
and uploading manuscripts into ScholarOne Manuscripts system. All CHEST requirements for authors also apply to authors of supplement papers. CHEST
will send out all papers in a group to an external reviewer for final
evaluation. Authors will be responsible for making the requested
changes.
-
Editing: CHEST will copyedit all articles
for grammar and style. The corresponding author of each article will be
responsible for review and approval of final page proofs.
-
Publication: Publication date will be determined by CHEST. An estimated publication date will be set once CHEST offices have received all the supplement material. CHEST reserves the right to move up or delay publication. All supplements will appear online as a standalone issue of CHEST, available to all CHEST subscribers.
-
Pricing: The price of an online only supplement is
$100,000 for up to 100 PDF pages. Each additional 4-pages will cost
$2,500. Print publication is also available, and costs will be
determined based on the estimated page count and use of color images.
-
Reprints & Bulk Orders: Single article reprints, e-prints, and bulk orders will be available on publication.
To submit a supplement proposal, contact CHEST.
BACK TO TOP
|
Article Element
|
Requirements
|
|
Abstract length
|
250 words, narrative format
|
|
Text length
|
2,500 words
|
|
Reference count
|
50 references
|
|
Color
|
$500 per figure
|
The general concept of Topics in Practice Management is to create a
short focused article, combining a brief review of a clinical topic with
a practice management perspective. References in this section should
include or even emphasize available website information from CMS, local
Medicare contractors, and even the American College of Chest Physicians
or other professional society websites if applicable. Topics in this
section are developed and invited by the CHEST Section Editors and Editor in Chief. Authors with suggestions for a topic are encouraged to contact CHEST.
BACK TO TOP
|
Article Element
|
Requirements
|
|
Abstract length
|
250 words, narrative format
|
|
Text length
|
2,500 words
|
|
Reference count
|
50 references
|
|
Color
|
2 free + $500 per figure
|
The purpose of Translating Basic Research into Clinical Practice is to
publish short articles that present advances in basic research that are
likely to be relevant to clinical practice in the respiratory field.
Articles are to explain why this advance is (or will become) important
to know about and how it may impact the management of respiratory
disease in the future. Topics in this section are developed and invited
by the CHEST Section Editors and Editor in Chief. Authors with suggestions for a topic are encouraged to contact CHEST.
BACK TO TOP
![---]()
|
Article Element
|
Requirements
|
|
Abstract length
|
None
|
|
Text length
|
1,200 words (of which case presentation should up to 300 words, with the discussion 900 words, including take-home points, ie, "Reverberations")
|
|
Reference count
|
10; no references should appear before the Discussion
|
|
Videos
|
2 or 3 video file sets (more than 1 video clip may be compiled for use in each video set),a: sets may include 1) first step in diagnosis; 2) next step by ultrasonography; 3) discussion video. Authors are responsible for creation and editing of videos, including addition of captioning and labeling.b Section editor will work with authors and ACCP to add voice-over narration on acceptance
|
|
Color
|
Acceptable, no charge
|
|
Format
|
1) Introduction/case presentation + initial examination video set; 2) Question + follow-up ultrasonography video set; 3) Discussion + discussion video; 4) take-home points, ie “reverberations”; 5) references
|
|
Other
|
Written patient permission is required for publication; waivers may be considered on a case-by-case basis and must be approved by the editor in chief.
|
aVideo clips may be combined as needed.
bAuthors should combine all needed video clips for each step into a single video file, using software such as Windows MovieMaker or Apple Final Cut Pro. For short ultrasound readings (eg, 2 or 3 seconds), authors should either loop the frames or copy the sequences several times so that viewers have a chance to absorb what they are seeing.
Manuscripts for this section are designed to teach readers, via a case-based article, to learn 1) the best selection and use of ultrasound procedures and 2) use of those procedures for better and more efficient diagnoses. Articles in this section will be online only; the article will be listed in the print issue table of contents.
-
Title: should include a short summary of the presenting feature, but not the procedural steps
-
Introduction: should begin with a description of patient presentation and initial tests
-
Video 1: should show initial test findings
-
Question: Based on these videos and the patient's clinical history and physical examination, what would be the next logical area to examine with ultrasonography?
-
Video 2: show next needed ultrasonography tests
- Answer: In the format, eg, "The next areas to examine are XX and XX that led to the diagnosis of X"
-
Discussion: describes in more detail the selection and results of the ultrasonography tests, resulting in a diagnosis and course of treatment
-
Video 3: discussion videos (mentions to be incorporated into the Discussion text)
-
Reverberations: list of 3 to 5 teaching points
-
References