rss

查看本页中文译文 >>
View a Chinese translation of this page >>

Instructions for Authors

For guidelines on policy and submission across our journals, please click on the links below:
Manuscript preparation
Editorial policies
Patient consent forms
Licence forms
Peer review
Submission and production processes

Editorial policy

Thorax seeks to publish significant advances in scientific understanding which are likely to impact on clinical practice. Articles concerning clinical topics, critical care, and those on basic mechanisms with application to clinical material, will be welcomed. We aim to cover all areas of respiratory medicine (epidemiology, paediatrics, immunology, sleep, pharmacology, pathology, surgery and critical care) through publishing original papers, editorials, reviews, audit/research/guideline/sytematic review updates, case based discussions and images. The priorities are originality and excellence. All submissions are subject to peer review. All papers that are potentially acceptable undergo statistical analysis.

Submissions to Thorax if favorably peer reviewed, are discussed at the weekly editorial committee prior to decision. We aim to ensure a fair and independent peer review system and to publish articles which follow the highest ethical standards concerning research conduct.

How we handle papers

Incoming manuscripts are checked by the staff, and if they conform to the Journal style, are assigned to the Editors in Chief. Note please: we are toughening up, and if your manuscript is too long or has too many references it will be returned unrefereed for you to edit; terseness not Tolstoy, please. Manuscripts that are reviewed positively are discussed by the Gang of Four at the weekly Hanging Committee. After Hanging Committee discussion, the decision may be to reject, or, if there are any numerical data at all in the manuscript, a statistical review is obtained, and a final decision taken when this review has been received. We have the statistical reviews in series not parallel because of cost and scarcity of precious statistical time. If your manuscript is rejected, of course you may appeal, and the appeal will be handled by whichever one of the EICs did not handle the original manuscript unless there is a conflict of interest. But please, only appeal if you feel there are significant errors of fact made during the initial process, and point them out to us. Editorial priority (aka whims) is inevitably arbitrary and does change as new manuscripts are accepted. All authors (including ourselves) allocate the highest priority to their own work, and feel editors who disagree were not merely conceived out of wedlock but have an IQ beginning with a minus sign. This assessment may be true, but expressing it will not get a decision over-turned.

Randomised controlled trials

We have recently published some excellent clinical trials, and we want more. Investigators - send us your final protocol and we will peer review it. If we accept it, and you send us the final manuscript, we will fast track it - the only reviewing issue will be whether you have done what you said you would; and if you have, positive or negative results, we will publish your manuscript. However, do not expect acceptance if you recruited on 8 of 250 patients!

Open Access

Authors can choose to have their article published Open Access for a fee of £1,950 (plus applicable VAT).

Colour figure charges

During submission you will be asked whether or not you agree to pay for the colour print publication of your colour images. This service is available to any author publishing within this journal for a fee of £250 per article. Authors can elect to publish online in colour and black and white in print, in which case the appropriate selection should be made upon submission.

What you can expect from us

We are getting typically between 100 and 180 manuscripts a month, and many tough priority decisions have to be made, and acceptance rate is just over 10% - sorry! The editorial process has been speeding up. We hope to get our first decision to you within 30 days. However, this is not always possible particularly around holiday periods.

Article types and word counts

The word count excludes the title page, abstract, tables, acknowledgements and contributions and the references. If you are not a native English speaker there is a professional editing service available.

Original Research

Full papers should follow the basic structure of abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, references, and tables and figures as appropriate. They should not normally exceed 250 words for the abstract, 3000 words for the content and include no more than 35 references. There is an online data repository for extra information, tables, figures and appendices. Please include an initial one sentence response to each of the following questions: what is the key question; what is the bottom line; and why read on? Failure to do this will result in the manuscript being returned unrefereed. These will be published as a text box at the beginning of the article

Word count: up to 3000 words
Structured abstract: up to 250 words
Tables/illustrations: Images submitted should be those which uniquely display the data and not repetition of information available either in the text or as a table. Figures are not limited, but must be thoroughly justified
References: up to 35

Case based discussions

The case report on which the discussion will be based should not exceed 1500 words with one table or illustration, and up to 5 references; in most cases, we expect the report to be significantly shorter. It might be easier to reference guideline statements rather than source papers in the reference list. We will consider more references if authors can show significant contributions and/or give compelling or specific reasons. We do ask that authors indicate that they have obtained patient consent. We are interested in cases that raise interesting diagnostic or management issues. All readers will recall unusual cases that have made a deep impact on them or taught them an important lesson. Often they will not be our best cases - we learn most from our mistakes. Don't be afraid to share the message with others; these are just the sort of cases we are interested in. More traditional case reports of cases that offer important insights into pathogenesis (i.e. adverse or unexpected beneficial effects of new treatments, new and unlikely associations) will be considered but only as a letter (see below).

We prefer the following formats for case based discussions; all have stood the test of time:

1. A dialogue between a junior doctor(s) and an experienced clinician. All participants should be authors. Pertinent aspects of the history, examination and investigations should be presented by the junior clinician in chronological order such that it mimics the actual clinical presentations. After every presentation the experienced clinician will discuss likely diagnosis and key missing information. This information will then be presented and the case should unravel naturally in much the same way it did in reality, ideally with one or two important take home messages.

2. A response to a referral note (Dear Chest Clinic) which clearly sets out the diagnostic and management approach. Most will be commissioned. We are interested in expert views on optimum management of that case. We would like you to outline what you regard as best management in a reasonably sized and equipped District General Hospital. Don't be afraid to ask for tests or treatments that are not readily available but do be prepared to justify clearly why you regard this test or treatment as essential.

3. Lesson of the month. A description of two or three cases from which an important lesson is learnt.

Ideally the key investigation could be included as an image. The quality of the image must be at least 600dpi and in TIFF, JPEG, GIF, Powerpoint or EPS format. The case based discussions must include two or three 5 part question MCQs with a true/false response.

Word count: up to 1500 words
Structured abstract: not required
Tables/illustrations: up to 1
References: up to 5

Pulmonary Puzzles

This category is for unusual cases that make an educational point. Since the aim of these articles is to stimulate the reader to think about the case, the title should be ambiguous and not give away the final diagnosis immediately.

Pulmonary Puzzles will appear in two parts and should be submitted via the website identified as such. The first part should contain a very brief clinical introduction to a case (maximum 250 words) followed by an image and a question designed to stimulate the reader to think about what the image shows. The legend should not indicate the diagnosis but should simply describe the nature of the image. The second part (maximum 250 words) will appear later in the issue and should contain the answer. The answer should include a brief description of the key diagnostic features of the image, the outcome, and a teaching point. Pulmonary Puzzles will not include more than 5 references. The quality of the image must be at least 600dpi and in TIFF, JPEG, GIF, Powerpoint or EPS format. We do ask that authors indicate that they have obtained patient consent.

Images in Thorax

Our Images in thorax section consists of a case report of 100 words, a few learning points, a maximum of two figures, and two references. The images can be radiological, pathological or both. Thorax will cover the cost of printing pathological images in colour. We recommend an author limit of 5, but we can consider more if authors can show significant contributions and/or give compelling or specific reasons. We do ask that authors indicate that they have obtained patient consent.

Journal club

For information on being an author for Journal club please contact Dr Jennifer Quint (jennifer.quint{at}lshtm.ac.uk).

Opinion

This is an unstructured section allowing contributors to highlight issues for debate. These could be in any relevant subject area. These articles will be commissioned but we are happy to consider unsolicited articles submitted via ScholarOne. Please aim for 1500 words and less than 5 references. We are particularly interested in hearing from colleagues who are retired or nearing retirement. Is there anything you would like to get off your chest? Manuscripts that make an important contribution to controversial areas of practice or health policy or legitimately question established dogma are particularly welcome.

Word count: up to 1500 words
Structured abstract: up to 250 words
Tables/illustrations: up to 1
References: up to 5

Basic science for the Chest Physician

These brief reviews of important recent advances in basic science relevant to the Chest Physician will be solicited but we will consider unsolicited articles submitted via ScholarOne. We would like 1000-1500 words, less than 5 references and an excellent figure. The goals of the article should be to: explain the science to the clinician, assuming no prior knowledge; and highlight the key clinically important findings.

Word count: up to 1500 words
Structured abstract: up to 250 words
Tables/illustrations: up to 1
References: up to 5

Audit, research and guideline updates

We are happy to consider important audit findings with national or international implications, brief descriptions of the protocol of forthcoming important research projects and brief updates to guideline documents. We would like 1000-1500 words, less than 5 references and a figure or table.

Word count: up to 1500 words
Unstructured abstract: up to 100 words
Tables/illustrations: up to 1
References: up to 5

Reviews

Although usually commissioned, we do occasionally accept unsolicited review articles on important and topical subjects with a particular focus on recent advances. Before submitting a review, we ask that you send the editors a brief outline (no more than 500 words) indicating the importance and novelty of the subject, and why you are qualified to write it. A one-page CV highlighting relevant work in the field from each proposed author will need to be attached. These will be peer reviewed. An invitation to submit will in no way guarantee acceptance. We ask reviewers to ensure that they include up-to-date and relevant references, including papers published by Thorax. Reviews should not normally exceed 4000 words. The review should include three or four 5 part question true/false MCQs.

Word count: up to 4000 words
Structured abstract: up to 500 words
Tables/illustrations: up to 1
References: up to 35

Letter to the Editor (original research and case reports)

Research letters in Thorax are welcome and should be submitted via ScholarOne. These should not normally exceed 500 words, with a brief abstract, one table or figure and no more than 5 references. Any additional submission information including methodology, data and tables can be placed in the on-line repository facility on the Thorax website. We prefer case reports in the Case-based discussion format (see above). We publish very occasional case reports in the research letter format but these cases must be exceptional and illuminating on mechanisms of disease rather than rare or obscure.

Correspondence

Letters in response to articles published in Thorax are welcome and should be submitted via ScholarOne. Correspondence must reach us by the end of the following calendar month (eg. by the end of July, for letters referring to articles in the June print issue) and be a maximum of 400 words, with one figure or table and no more than 5 references. As for research letters, authors may also make use of the on-line repository facility for supplemental data.

Editorial

Editorials are normally commissioned and relate to original research papers. The aim is to critically discuss the paper, highlight important issues and put them into perspective and identify areas where more information is needed. The Editors may occasionally accept uncommissioned articles of this type, but it is suggested this is discussed with the Editors prior to submission. The word count should be up to 1500 words and 20 references.

Word count: up to 1500
Structured abstract: not required
Tables/illustrations: up to 2
References: up to 20

HOT off the Breath

The editors welcome and will fast track articles on really hot topics. These should be discussed in advance with the Editors in Chief. They will be peer-reviewed, and clear justification as to why the article should not go through the normal processes should be given.

Supplements

BMJ journals are willing to consider publishing supplements to regular issues. Supplement proposals may be made at the request of:

  1. The journal editor, an editorial board member or a learned society may wish to organise a meeting, sponsorship may be sought and the proceedings published as a supplement.
  2. The journal editor, editorial board member or learned society may wish to commission a supplement on a particular theme or topic. Again, sponsorship may be sought.
  3. BMJ itself may have proposals for supplements where sponsorship may be necessary.
  4. A sponsoring organisation, often a pharmaceutical company or a charitable foundation, that wishes to arrange a meeting, the proceedings of which will be published as a supplement.

In all cases, it is vital that the journal's integrity, independence and academic reputation is not compromised in any way.

When contacting us regarding a potential supplement, please include as much of the information below as possible.

  • Journal in which you would like the supplement published
  • Title of supplement and/or meeting on which it is based
  • Date of meeting on which it is based
  • Proposed table of contents with provisional article titles and proposed authors
  • An indication of whether authors have agreed to participate
  • Sponsor information including any relevant deadlines
  • An indication of the expected length of each paper Guest Editor proposals if appropriate

For further information on criteria that must be fulfilled, download the supplements guidelines (PDF).

Plagiarism detection

BMJ is a member of CrossCheck by CrossRef and iThenticate. iThenticate is a plagiarism screening service that verifies the originality of content submitted before publication. iThenticate checks submissions against millions of published research papers, and billions of web content. Authors, researchers and freelancers can also use iThenticate to screen their work before submission by visiting www.ithenticate.com.


Free sample
This recent issue is free to all users to allow everyone the opportunity to see the full scope and typical content of Thorax.
View free sample issue >>

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.