Author Guidelines

Please review the Submissions Guidelines in addition to the Author Guidelines shared below.

Download a pdf copy of the JCEPT Author Guidelines

I. Prepare the Manuscript

II. Criteria for Manuscripts

III. Peer-Review Process and Timeline

IV. Prepare a Revision

V. Correcting Proofs

I. Prepare the Manuscript

To submit a manuscript for potential publication, you will need to provide the following:

  • A cover letter that 1) identifies the type of manuscript, 2) lists any past presentation/publication of the manuscript content, and 3) names at least 2 suggested reviewers with full name, title, and email.

  • An original and blind copy of the manuscript along with any tables or figures in continuous line, single column, 1 inch margin, font 12 format. The blinded version of the manuscript should contain no potentially identifying information that would indicate names, locations, affiliations, or funding information.

  • A completed Article Manuscript Preparation Checklist (Failure to do so may result in a delayed review or possible rejection)

  • Title Page (single space) 
    • Manuscript title
    • Full Author Names & Titles (highest academic degree, professional designation only)
    • Note: All authors must have contributed substantially to the work according to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals guidelines, thus meeting all of the following criteria: 1) contributed to concept, design, or analysis and interpretation of the data, 2) drafted or critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content, and 3) approved the final version. Authorship based only on data collection or study support, or supervisory position is not permitted. All co-authors must confirm authorship.
    • Professional Role in drop down + other
    • Institution Names (where the work took place): city, state/province, country
    • Funding Sources: If none, write “No funding.”
    • Conflict of Interests: If none, write “The authors have no conflicts of interest.”
    • Disclose any previous presentation of the underlying manuscript content
    • Ethical Approval: Include IRB/Ethical Board approval and protocol number
    • Corresponding Author: Name, Mailing Address, telephone, email
    • Acknowledgements (optional): anyone named in acknowledgements must give written permission for their name to appear.
  • Abstract (single space)
    • Manuscript title
    • Abstract structured in format per Submission Type Guidelines
    • Keywords: 3 MeSH terms, 2-3 author keywords
  • Text
    • Use headings as listed in the specific guidelines in Criteria for Manuscripts each submission type
    • Number in-text citations sequentially using superscript (AMA style) or parenthesis (Vancouver style).
  • List References sequentially in standard format starting on a separate page after the manuscript.
    • Journal articles: Author AB, Author CD, Author EF, et al. Article title in sentence case. J Abbrev per Index Medicus (2019) 1:123-45. DOI: 10.2019/jcept12345
    • Book chapter:  Author AB, Author CD. Chapter title in sentence case. In: Editor AB, Editor CD. Book Name In Title Case, 2nd ed. Publishing Company, City, State. 2019:123-45
    • Internet document: Organization Name. Document title sentence case. Accessed January 1, 2019:https://jcept@columbia.edu
  • Present Tables on separate pages after References with at least one in-text call-out.
    • Number tables (e.g. Table 1) and include an accurately descriptive title.
    • Define abbreviations below the table (e.g. ROM = range-of-motion)
    • Footnotes in AMA style guide are cited with the following superscript symbols in this order: *, †, ‡
  • Present Figures on separate pages after Tables with at least one in-text call-out.
    • Number figures (e.g. Figure 1) and include an accurately descriptive title.
    • Format in JPEG, PNG, or TIFF (300 dpi); include data file for charts and graphs created in spreadsheets (e.g. Excel)
    • Define abbreviations below the table (e.g. ROM = range-of-motion)
    • Footnotes in AMA style guide are cited with the following superscript symbols in this order: *, †, ‡
    • Appropriate permissions for images must be gathered by the author. (ADD LINK)
  • Prepare video in MPEG, MOV, or AVI formats
    • Introduce with title screen, accompany with narration.
    • No longer than 2-minutes.
    • Appropriate permissions for use of videos must be gathered by the author. (ADD LINK)

II. Criteria for Manuscripts

 

Original Research Article

250 word abstract, 3000 word manuscript, 30 references, 5 tables/figures: exploratory (cohort) and experimental (controlled). Rationale, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, References. CONSORT checklist and flow chart for randomized control trials located at http://www.consort-statement.org. STROBE checklist for cohort or case-control studies available at https://www.strobe-statement.org/index.php?id=available-checklists.

Criteria for Original Research

Abstract Rationale Methods

Purpose: outline clearly primary purpose

Methods: describe study design, sample, any interventions, primary assessments

Results:  report primary outcomes

Conclusion: summarize factual conclusion derived from the study

Clinically relevant problem to address

Analysis of existing knowledge from recent literature review

Gap in the knowledge and thus need for study  

Purpose with specific and measurable aims

Design: with timeline

Ethics approval

Subjects: recruitment method with inclusion and exclusion criteria

Procedures: organized, complete, repeatable, and addresses bias. Detail assessors and measures with reliability and validity; interventions with references to support approach

Analysis: statistics or qualitative method match aims, design, data
Results Discussion Conclusion

Subjects described (detail in Table 1). State if student participation was required for grade, if applicable.

Result section free of interpretation and bias

Clearly address primary aim

Clearly address secondary aims

Primary finding relevant to clinical education or practice

Interpret findings in context of current literature

Impact of study, not overstated

Explain strengths and limitations

Relevance to clinical education or clinical practice

Most salient finding, derived specifically from study. Free of bias

 

Reviews

250 word abstract, 3000 word manuscript, 30 references, 5 tables/figures: narrative reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Clinical Implication, References, PRISMA checklist and flow chart for reviews available at http://www.prisma-statement.org.

Criteria for Narrative Reviews, Systematic Reviews, & Meta-analyses

Abstract Introduction Methods

Primary objective

Review type

Summary of review method

Primary results

Factual conclusion without interpretation

Clinically relevant problem to address

Analysis of existing knowledge including findings form any relevant reviews

Establish gap in knowledge and thus need for study  

* Narrative reviews can include clinical case, assessment or treatment method, or real world applications

Objectives: specific purpose

Type of review accurately represented

Procedures: organized, complete, repeatable, and addresses bias.

Search strategy with databases, MESH terms and keywords

* Systematic Reviews include search term combinations in appendix.

Screening method controlled: reviewers, inclusion and exclusion criteria, quality assessment

Data extraction method and components

Quality assessment method

Data synthesis method

* Systematic Reviews include GRADE of evidence https://training.cochrane.org/grade-approach

* Meta analyses include statistical analysis
Results Discussion Clinical Implication

Clear reporting of main results

* Systematic Reviews include PRISMA flow chart

Table of study data

Quality assessment explained

Table of quality assessment

* Meta analyses include explanation of statistics, pooled results and forest plots

Primary finding in light of quality/bias assessment

Comparison to prior knowledge

Explanation of strengths and limitations

Relevance to clinical education or practice with impact not overstated

* Narrative Reviews can include findings of a clinical case, or real world applications

 (50 words)

 

Clinical Teaching Methods

250 word abstract, 3000 word manuscript, 30 references, 5 tables/figures: description of teaching methods or models of education relevant to clinical practice. Rationale, Method or Model, Discussion, Clinical Relevance, References

Criteria for Teaching Methods or Educational Models

Abstract Rationale Teaching Method or Educational Model

Objective: clearly stated

Method or Model: succinctly summarized

Discussion: Outcomes analyzed in context of past literature or educational theory

Clinical Relevance: impact on clinical practice or education

Introduce educational challenge

Analysis of existing related literature Established need for method or model

Objective is clear, specific, and relevant to clinical education or practice

Description of the method or model in time context: organized, repeatable, assessable.

Learners and educators defined

Learning outcome (e.g. knowledge, skills, application) specifically linked to objective

* Education Model is scalable for broad application in a sub-curriculum (e.g. lifespan), program curriculum (e.g. clinical education), or profession
Discussion Clinical Relevance (100 words)

Primary outcomes analyzed

Comparison to relevant literature

Relevant educational theory

Review strengths and limitations

Proposed application

Application to teaching/learning and/or clinical practice

Impact not overstated

 

Critically Appraised Topics (CAT)

200 word abstract structured with the following headings, 2000 word manuscript, 12 references, 3 tables/figures: Clinical scenario, Clinical question, Search methods, Literature Review, Implications, Take Home Message, References.

Abstract Clinical Scenario Clinical Question

Clinical question: in context of clinical scenario

Brief highlight of existing literature

Primary implication for clinical practice, education, or research

Take Home Message: relevance for clinical practice, education, or research

Sufficient detail provided to understand scenario

Summarize existing literature including any relevant reviews

Established clinical need for critically appraisal topic

Relevant to clinical practice

PICO format: Patient condition, Intervention or assessment, Comparison, Outcome
Search Method Literature Review Implications

Organized repeatable search and screening strategy:

Databases, MESH terms and keywords, date range

Inclusion/exclusion criteria for reviewed studies (e.g. design, subjects, treatments, outcomes, quality assessment)

Selection rationale for summarized studies

Establish gap in knowledge and relevance to clinical scenario and question

Summarize key findings from best evidence (3-5 high-quality studies): e.g. diagnostic, prognostic, outcomes, adverse events

Appraisal Table of included studies (e.g. design, subjects, intervention and control conditions, outcomes, level of evidence (www.cebm.net)

Strength of Evidence assessment

Strengths & limitations

Table of Appraised Literature

Interpretation for clinical practice, education, or research

Discussion beyond study design and outcome data is encouraged: Examples include interpretation of cost and feasibility for real-life clinical practice.
Take Home Message (100 words)

Relevance to clinical teaching/learning and/or clinical practice. Findings not overstated.

 

Case Reports

200 word abstract, 2000 word manuscript, 20 references, 3 tables/figures: reflective case studies should address novel clinical education or unusual clinical case scenarios—as represented in the literature. Case studies will only be considered when no randomized control trials addressing the case scenario have been published. Note that case studies do not establish cause and effect. Two types are considered:

Clinical Education Reports include the Rationale, Clinical Education scenario or Clinical Case problem including how the outcome was assessed, Discussion, Implication including applicability to other teaching/learning scenarios.

Clinical Case Reports are in-depth evidence-based explorations of the real-world decision making process of a clinical case as is common for residents and fellows during training. The clinical case report can focus on the case presentation/diagnosis, intervention/outcome, and/or the reflection/implication of the clinician or case. Included sections are the Rationale, Clinical Case Description including how the outcome was assessed, Discussion, and Implications. References and IRB approval or patient consent required. Images recommended. CARE checklist required, available at http://www.care-statement.org/resources/checklist.

Criteria for Clinical Education Case or Clinical Case Reports

Abstract Rationale Clinical Education Scenario or Clinical Case Problem

Clinical Education Scenario or Clinical Case problem

Establish need for case study in context of current literature

Case Description with methods and outcomes

Implications of case report, without overstating impact

Establish need for a case report in context of existing literature

Provide logical rationale for method in context of literature

Purpose: clear with specific aim and outcomes

Case description: focused, organized, logical, linked to clinical problem or education scenario. Includes intervention, assessment.

* Clinical Education Report focused on educational theory, setting, teaching method, and/or assessment

* Clinical Case Report may focus on diagnostic, prognostic, intervention, and/or assessment process

Outcomes: repeatable, assessable

Reflection: on content, process, and/or premise of scenario or problem. Can be included in any section.
Discussion Implications

Meaningful and referenced analysis of case report and outcomes

Findings in context of strengths and limitations

Impact related to current literature

Leads to new understanding, not overstated.

Factually based on case report. Clinically relevant. Impact not overstated

 

Perspectives

200 word abstract, 2000 word manuscript, 20 references, 3 tables/figures: perspectives are evidence-based manuscripts in the form of invited position papers on educational topics; or open clinical perspectives on current trends in the delivery of care or education, or reviews of professional development opportunities. Format may vary, but all perspectives will address the current evidence related to the issue/purpose, logical argument to support the perspective, and clinical implications.

Criteria for Invited Position Paper, Clinical Perspective, Professional Development

Abstract Current Issue Perspective

briefly introduces topic and perspective

Need for Perspective

Relevant literature

Logical organized argument

Support for perspective on educational topics that have broad application

Address alternate perspectives

* Professional Development Perspectives can address residency/fellowship training, clinical specialization, doctoral education, continuing education, or other
Clinical or Clinical Education Implications
 

III. Peer-Review Process and Timeline

 

  • Review time: We aim to provide a response within 3 months.
  • Decision categories
    • Accepted: Will be valued, educational, and informative for JCEPT. No changes are necessary, beyond copy editing and corrections.
    • Minor revision: Can be valued, educational, and informative for JCEPT, but requires significant revisions, as suggested by reviewers/editors before further consideration.
    • Major revision: Might be valued, educational, and informative for JCEPT, but serious flaws/issues must be addressed, and additional information must be provided before further consideration.
    • Reject: The topic is either not suitable for JCEPT or the content would not be significantly valued, educational, or informative for the JCEPT audience. The reviewers believe any flaws/issues in the manuscript cannot be corrected.
  • Appeal process: Appeals submitted within 2 weeks of the Editorial decision will be considered.
  • Once accepted, authors will receive page proofs via email before publication. This is the last  opportunity for authors to proofread/copy edit before publication. No substantial content changes allowed.

IV. Prepare a Revision

 

  • Submit a "Response to Reviewers" document formatted in MS word itemizing all Author Responses to each Reviewer Suggestions for revisions, and any other changes.
  •  Submission of a revised manuscript includes submission of separate documents in the following order:
    • Title page in same format as new manuscript submission.
    • Main text (blinded) with changes highlighted in yellow including abstract, main text, references
    • Main text (clean copy) with no highlighted changes including abstract, main text, references
    • Tables
    • Figures
    • Checklist
    • Appendices
  •  Submit revisions by the due date specified in the decision e-mail. If the revision is not received by this date, the submission is closed and subsequent submissions will be considered as a new submission.

V. Correcting Proofs

 

  •  After acceptance, proofs will be prepared for author review. No changes to the content are permitted at this stage. Make necessary corrections and respond to Author Queries from the editorial staff.
  •  This is the final opportunity for authors to proofread/copy edit the article before publication. No substantial content changes will be allowed.
  •  Submit corrections by the date specified in the e-mail notice to ensure timely publication of your work.