Peer Review Policy
One of the Editors will make an initial appraisal of each manuscript to determine if it fits in the scope of the journal. Manuscripts passing initial review are then assigned to an appropriate editor to facilitate peer review. Once the review process has been completed, the editor will recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection of the manuscript. For manuscripts recommended for revision, authors are requested to submit their revisions, along with a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments within four weeks. Revised manuscripts will undergo an additional review that will be performed by the original reviewers whenever possible. Final decisions on all manuscripts will be made by the Co-Editors.
Manuscripts must not be under review by another journal during the review period and will be maintained as confidential documents until publication. Appeals, complaints, or allegations of misconduct will be taken with utmost seriousness, regardless of whether those involved are internal or external to the journal, or whether the submission in question is pre- or post-publication. All appeals, complaints, or issues of potential misconduct regarding the journal or its content should be raised with the Co-Editors.
Author Instructions
General:
- Prepare your submission using Word
- Set margins to ‘Normal’ (1” all around)
- Use 12-point Times New Roman
- Use Single space the document and do not insert extra lines between paragraphs
- Use boldface for section headings
- Define all symbols, abbreviations, and acronyms the first time they are used.
- Begin new paragraphs with tabs
- Do not use any referencing software (e.g., Endnote, Reference Manager)
Title (<100 characters): Concise descriptive title that does not contain any acronyms or abbreviations. Do not use capital letters for the entire title. For example - A Study of the Effects………….
Authors and Affiliations: The resident/fellow should be listed as first author, and the attending physician should be listed as the last author. All other people that made significant contributions to the work being reported should also be included. You are encouraged to read “Thoughts on Authorship” Clin Orthop Rel Res 2008; 466:1002-5 for a detailed discussion on authorship decisions. Be sure to write out all author names in full, including middle initials, and degrees. Full affiliation information should be indicated by placing a superscript number after each author’s last name, and then generating a list.
For example - Ima G. Resident1
1Department of Orthopaedics, Stony Brook University
Disclosure Statement: Provide an explicit listing of all potential conflicts of interest for each author. If none, state that there are no conflicts.
Keywords: Provide 3-5 keywords.
Ethical Review Committee/HIPAA: Studies involving humans or human data or animals must have been approved by the IRB (for Human Subjects) or IACUC (for animal subjects) prior to initiation. If your study required approval, explicitly state this fact in the methods section. No identifying patient information can be included in your submissions (this includes figures, so be sure all content is deidentified).
Abstract (~250 words): The abstract should be structured to address the following five issues as succinctly as possible: 1) Background (prior work, clinical relevance, outstanding issues); 2) Hypothesis/Purpose (why was this study done); 3) Methods (study design, samples, outcome measures, statistics); 4) Results (highlight major findings); 5) Conclusions (was hypothesis proven or disproved, was purpose achieved, synthesize findings with background).
Body of Text (~2000 words): The body should be divided into the following sections.
Introduction (~500 words): The introduction should be two to three paragraphs in length. Begin with a paragraph or two explaining the background of the study (citing key literature). Then write a paragraph describing the rationale for the current study that places it in the context of what is known and unknown regarding the area. Finally, conclude with a paragraph that details the specific hypothesis and/or purpose of the study.
Materials and Methods (~500 words): This section should be three to ten paragraphs in length. Dedicate each paragraph to one aspect of the materials and methods (e.g., study design, participants, samples, experimental manipulations, surgery, outcome measures, statistics, etc.)
Results (~500 words): Should be three to eight paragraphs in length. Dedicate each paragraph to a specific set of outcomes (e.g., surgical outcomes, adverse events, force measurements, geometric measurements). Remember that patient demographics (or number of animals/cadaveric samples) are NOT results. These demographics should appear the methods. Make clear distinctions between descriptive results and statistically significant results. Do not offer any explanations or speculations in this section, stick to the actual results. Refer to each of your figures at least once.
Discussion (~500 words): This section should be three to five paragraphs in length. Begin with a restatement of background, rationale, and hypothesis/purpose. Then discuss how your study proved/disproved the hypothesis or achieved/failed to achieve its purpose. Following this, clearly state and discuss the major limitations of the study. Next, compare and/or contrast your results with observations or data from the literature. Finally, synthesis your results with those in the literature and sum up what overall conclusions can be drawn and what issue remain outstanding and in need of further study.
Acknowledgments (optional): If any people assisted with the study but did not contribute enough to justify authorship, make note of them by name and specific contribution. Also, explicitly note any financial (including materials/services) contributions.
References: You should have between 5 and 10 references. Try to cite reviews for background information and only key studies to keep references low. References should be cited in the text by placing superscript numbers before commas and periods, immediately after the point they are documenting. References should be numbered in the order that they are cited in the text and listed in the reference section in the same order. Format for references is that used for CORR.
For example -
Journal article: Kaplan FS, August CS, Dalinka MK. Bone densitometry observations of osteopetrosis in response to bone marrow transplantation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;294:79-84.
Book Chapter: Glick JM. Arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis. In: Guhl JF, Parisien JS, Boynton MD, eds. Foot and Ankle Arthroscopy. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2004:163-174.
Book: Watkins RG. Surgical Approaches to the Spine. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2003.
Website: Health Care Financing Administration. 2004 statistics. Available at:
http://www.hcfa.gov/stats/stathili.htm. Accessed July 29, 2005.
Figures and Tables: Each submission should contain a sufficient number of figures/tables to concisely present the results. Number them in order of appearance in the text and be sure to refer to each figure/table at least once. Embed the figures/tables in the body of your manuscript where you wish them to appear. For each, include the Figure/Table number, title, and a caption that provided a stand-alone explanation of the figure/table. Size figures/tables appropriately for printing, use adequate resolution, and use color only when necessary. Avoid the use of shading in graphs and utilize solid colors instead.
