© The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland
Edited By: Dr S. M. Yentis, London, UK
Impact Factor: 3.846
ISI Journal Citation Reports © Ranking: 2013: 4/29 (Anesthesiology)
Online ISSN: 1365-2044
NIH Public Access Mandate
For those interested in the Wiley policy on the NIH Public Access Mandate, please visit our policy statement
WHY PUBLISH IN ANAESTHESIA?
As a new or established author you are looking for the best place to submit your work. We recognise the wide range of specialty journals that currently exist, and are determined to be at the top of the list when authors make their decision. Click here to read the main reasons why we feel that authors should consider publication of their best work in Anaesthesia.
NOTICE TO CONTRIBUTORS
Anaesthesia is the official journal of the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland and is published monthly. It is international in scope and comprehensive in coverage. It publishes original, peer-reviewed articles on all aspects of general and regional anaesthesia, intensive care and pain therapy, including research on equipment. Although primarily a clinical journal, we welcome submissions of animal or basic science papers if the authors can demonstrate their clinical relevance.
The Editorial Board of Anaesthesia supports the statement on Geopolitical Intrusion on Editorial Decisions, by the World Association of Medical Editors and is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics.
All authors must meet the requirements of authorship as set out in the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors i.e. all have made a substantial contribution to the acquisition of data and its interpretation AND been involved in drafting the manuscript or revising it. All proposed changes in authorship after submission must be explained, and any changes can only occur with the explicit permission of the Editor-in-Chief. Authors are advised that all submissions are checked for redundant publication and plagiarism using specific software.
The Editorial Board takes all cases of possible publication misconduct seriously and will investigate these according to the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics. Further guidance can be found in our Editorial Policies, here.
Researchers about to start clinical trials (any research project that prospectively assigns human subjects to intervention or comparison groups to study the cause-and-effect relationship between a medical intervention and a health outcome) that they are intending to submit to Anaesthesia should pre-register the trial on a public registry at or before the time of first recruitment. There are several public registries now available on the internet, e.g. listed at the World Health Organization’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.
TYPES OF MANUSCRIPT
Anaesthesia has the following regular sections: Editorials, Original Articles, Reviews and Correspondence. Case Reports, Historical Articles or Special Articles may also be included. Editorials and Reviews are often commissioned but authors are encouraged to contact the Editor-in-Chief if they wish to discuss potential topics. Authors seeking to submit official Clinical Guidelines, Consensus Statements, etc, should refer to specific guidance here.
SUBMISSION OF MATERIAL
The Editors regret that failure to comply with the following requirements may result in a delay in publication of accepted papers, and strongly urge authors to use the following Checklist before submitting their work.
Before submitting your manuscript or item of correspondence, please check that you have:
Please do not attach files in .bmp, .docm or.rar format – these files will be filtered and/or rendered unreadable.
Submission should be via the following routes, depending on the type of material:
Case reports cannot be submited directly to Anaesthesia. Authors wishing to submit a case report for publication should do so via the Anaesthesia Cases website, which is hosted by the AAGBI and may be reached at www.anaesthesiacases.org. Case reports will be considered for publication online at the Anaesthesia Cases website, and a proportion will be passed to Anaesthesia for possible publication in the Journal. Those not published by Anaesthesia will be passed back to Anaesthesia Cases for publication there. (N.B. case reports published in Anaesthesia Cases will not appear in Anaesthesia, and they may not be submitted for publication elsewhere).
There are two routes for sending correspondence:
- Please submit all responses to material published in Anaesthesia via the dedicated correspondence website; do not send them to the Editorial Office. Responses should be submitted following the guidance on the website and using the online form provided, not uploaded as a Word file.
- Please submit all correspondence that is not in response to material published in Anaesthesia to the Editorial Office (see below), clearly indicating that it is a letter to the Editor-in-Chief.
Abstracts presented at specialist society meetings
Please note that the Journal no longer publishes abstracts from specialist society meetings. Abstracts presented at the AAGBI Winter Scientific Meeting, AAGBI Annual Congress and AAGBI Group of Anaesthetists in Training Annual Scientific Meeting will continue to be published as online supplements.
All other material
All manuscripts should be submitted via email to the address below as an attachment (Word for Windows or rich text format - see below for information regarding Figures).
Submission in any other format may slow down the review/publication process but is possible for those authors who do not have access to the appropriate technology – if this applies please contact the Editor-in-Chief in advance at the journal’s Editorial Office:
Dr Steve Yentis,
Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain & Ireland,
21 Portland Place,
Covering letter/Declaration Form
No covering letter is required but all manuscripts must be accompanied by an Authors’ Declaration Form, which may be downloaded here. Failure to do so, and failure to follow these Author Guidelines, may significantly delay the process of reviewing your manuscript.
PREPARATION OF MATERIAL
A typical manuscript will have the following sections in the following order:
The name and full postal address of the corresponding author should appear in the top left-hand corner. The rest of the page should follow this example:
Title of paper that does not state the conclusion or pose a question*
A. B. Author,1 C. D. Author2 and E. F. Author3
1 Position/designation of 1st author, primary institution, city, country.
2 Position/designation of 2nd author, primary institution, city, country.
3 Position/designation of 3rd author, primary institution, city, country.
Correspondence to: Dr Corresponding Author (incl. e-mail address)
*footnote if presented in part at any national or international meetings, with details including location and date.
Short title of up to 60 characters suitable for a running header
NB Place the superscript number after the commas in the list of authors. Please do not include authors’ qualifications. Please note that statements such as 'Author XX and Author YY both contributed equally to this work' are not used. Key words are not required.
A Summary of fewer than 150 words should state the purpose of the study or investigation, basic procedures, main findings (giving actual results not just a broad description) and their statistical significance (using actual p values), and principal conclusions. The Summary should not be structured nor in note or abbreviated form. It should not state that ‘the results are discussed’ or that ‘work is presented’. Abbreviations should not be used except for units of measurement. Use the same order when discussing the methods and results as in the main body of the text, and always mention the groups in the same order.
No heading is required for this section. The Introduction should give a concise account of the subject’s background. Previously published work should only be quoted if it has a direct bearing on the present study. The Introduction should clearly and explicitly state the aims of the project.
A statement confirming Local Research Ethics Committee approval and written informed consent should be at the beginning of this section (see Ethical Considerations, below).
The Methods section must describe in sufficient detail the techniques and processes used so that the investigation can be interpreted and repeated by readers. Any modification of previously published methods should be described and the appropriate reference given. If the methods are commonly used, only a reference to the original source is required. If special equipment is used, then the manufacturer’s details (including town and country) should be given in parentheses. Drugs should be identified by their recommended international non-proprietary names (rINNS. NB adrenaline and noradrenaline are used in preference to epinephrine and norepinephrine). Label groups in a way that is easy to follow; thus ‘propofol group’ and ‘thiopental group’ instead of ‘Group P’ and ‘Group T’. (Occasionally, abbreviated group titles may be better, e.g. ‘Group BLAB’ instead of ‘bupivacaine-lidocaine-adrenaline-bicarbonate group’). Remember to include inclusion/exclusion criteria, a justification of sample size (see Statistics, below) and the method of randomisation and blinding. The statistical methods used to investigate data should be given at the end of the Methods section (see below).
Express results as mean (SD), median (IQR [range]) or number (proportion) as appropriate. Results (including actual p values) must be presented for all measurements detailed in the Methods section, and in the same order. Results should not be repeated unnecessarily – for example if a graph is used, do not also present the same information in the text or in a Table. Results should not be given to an unwarranted number of decimal places and 95% confidence intervals should be used where possible (see Statistics, below).
The Discussion should not merely recapitulate the results but should present their interpretation against a background of existing knowledge. Any conclusions must be warranted by the results. In general, avoid a paragraph headed ‘Conclusions’ that merely repeats a summary of the results. Also avoid ending with ‘further work is needed’ (it almost always is) unless you have specific areas of research to suggest.
The authors should acknowledge those who have made substantial contributions to the study or preparation of the manuscript but whose contributions do not fulfil the requirements for authorship (see above). For Case Reports, a statement ‘Published with the written consent of the patient(s)’ should be included.
A statement should be made at the end of all manuscripts, stating any funding obtained and any potential competing interests. For example: ‘No external funding and no competing interests declared’ or ‘Funded by the XXXX Association, grant no. yyyy. Author AB has received payments from ZZZZ Ltd for consultancy work’ etc as appropriate.
Information or data not directly a result of the study but necessary for the reader to understand the manuscript should be included as an Appendix. Examples might include copies of questionnaires used, recognised mathematical processes used to generate results or previously published and validated classification systems. All should be appropriately referenced and the authors must obtain permission from the copyright holders if the contents have been previously published.
Number references (including articles in press) consecutively in the order they appear in the text, using Arabic numerals enclosed in square brackets on the line (not superscript). Use [1-4] instead of [1,2,3,4]. Abstracts may be quoted as references so long as they have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Internet sites may be quoted as references by listing them in the normal way in the text (using Arabic numerals). Unpublished observations, personal communications and abstracts published only in proceedings of meetings should be quoted within the text of the manuscript, in parentheses. Please submit copies of any articles accepted for publication but not yet published. Information from manuscripts submitted but not yet accepted should be cited in the text as unpublished observations. References cited for the first time in Tables or Figures should be numbered in the sequence established by the first mention of the particular Table/Figure in the text. All references (including those in press) should be listed at the end of the text in the order they are quoted. For internet sites, please include the date accessed in parentheses. List all authors unless there are seven or more, in which case give the first three followed by ‘et al.’. Spell out the names of all journals in full, and give the first and last page number, not just the first.
- Author AB, Author CD. Title of paper. Journal Title Written Out in Full in Italics 2010; 12: 123-4.
- Author AB, Author CD. Title of paper published as 'ePub ahead of print'. Journal Title Written Out in Full in Italics 2010 Dec 15; doi xx.xxxx/xxx.xxxxxx.
- Author AB, Author CD, Author EF, et al. Seven or more authors – what’s the point? (chapter title). In: Editor GH, Editor IJ, eds. Title of Book. Place: Publisher, 2010: 345-67.
- Author AB. Book Title, 5th edn. Place: Publisher, 2010.
- Author(s) of website. Title of document/page, 2010. www.URL.co.uk/link.pdf (accessed 01/01/2010).
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has stated that: "Authors are responsible for checking that none of the references cite retracted articles except in the context of referring to the retraction. For articles published in journals indexed in MEDLINE, the ICMJE considers PubMed the authoritative source for information about retractions." Retracted articles can be identified by using the following search strategy in PubMed, e.g. for an author J. Smith enter "Smith*J AND retracted publication[pt]".
Include the Tables in the same file as the text, but after the References not in the middle of the text. Each Table should be on a separate page. Number the Tables consecutively with Arabic numerals. Each Table should have a brief Caption immediately above it; the Caption should provide enough information for readers to follow it without having to look through the text (e.g. ‘Characteristics of patients receiving vecuronium or rocuronium for caesarean section’ rather than just ‘Patients’ characteristics’). The Caption should explain whether the values refer to mean (SD), number (proportion), etc. Abbreviations should not be mentioned in the Caption without explanation. Abbreviations used in the body of the Table should be explained as footnotes in the order in which they are first mentioned, using the following symbols (nb not superscript) in the following order: *, †, ‡, §, ¶, **, ††, ‡‡, etc. The study groups should form the columns rather than the rows. If statistical comparisons are being made, a separate column with exact p values should appear.
Please supply each Figure as a separate file, rather than embed them within the body of the Word document, and preferably in TIFF or high-resolution JPEG format. We ask that they are both supplied at a resolution of 300 pixels per inch for photographs and 600 pixels per inch for line art or a combination of photograph and labelling. Please do not send image files larger than 10MB.
Please ensure related graphs have the same format (fonts, use of symbols, etc), and that the groups are presented in the same order in each graph (and in the same order as in the rest of the manuscript). The same requirements for abbreviations and units apply as for those in the text. The title, plot frame, gridlines and legend box within the graph itself should be removed, with symbols and error bars explained in the Caption. Avoid the use of 3-D unless absolutely necessary. Please note that colour Figures (e.g. photographs, complex flow diagrams, etc) may be used without charge, but only if the Editors consider that the use of colour is crucial.
Captions for Figures
Each Figure Caption should include an explanation of the symbols used to provide enough information for readers to follow it without having to look through the text.
Figure 1 Itching after surgery in patients receiving saline () or chlorphenamine (). No significant difference between groups.
Is preferable to this:
Figure 1 Itching after surgery.
See notes below for ethical considerations relating to photographs.
Supporting Information (online only)
Additional material such as video clips, lengthy Appendices (e.g. extensive reference lists or mathematical formulae/calculations), etc, that are relevant to a particular article but not suitable or essential for the print edition of the Journal, may also be considered for publication. Please refer to all supporting information in the manuscript using Table S1, Figure S1, etc, and supply such information as separate files (i.e. not embedded within the main manuscript). Further information on suitable file formats etc may be found here
Please note that Anaesthesia uses UK English spelling eg “ise” not “ize”, “anaes” not “anes” etc. In general, we prefer a clear, precise style to jargon. Please avoid long, complicated sentences and the passive voice when the active is more appropriate (e.g. ‘We chose epidural anaesthesia because...’ instead of ‘Epidural anaesthesia was chosen by the authors because...’). Remove unnecessary clutter and focus on the actual message of each sentence; thus ‘Hypotension is important because...’ instead of ‘It would be remiss of us not to mention hypotension because...’). Remember that lungs are ventilated, not patients (nor are they intubated – their tracheas are). Similarly, patients are not induced – anaesthesia is – or put on ventilators. Correct terms are tracheal (not endotracheal) tube and neuromuscular blocking drugs (not muscle relaxants). Please refer to recent issues of the Journal for preferred wording/spelling, e.g. “manikin” is preferred to “mannequin”, and “supraglottic airway device” is preferred to “extraglottic airway device”.
In general, the Journal does not encourage the use of abbreviations, especially in the Summary, since their frequent use makes papers cluttered and difficult to read. However, we will accept abbreviations in the following circumstances:
- Universal abbreviations that do not need to be written out in full when first mentioned in the text. These include abbreviations that appear in a large proportion of the articles published in the Journal, e.g. ASA, BMI, ECG, ICU, HDU, SD, SEM, 95% CI, IQR, ANOVA, SpO2, FIO2, pH.
- Acceptable common abbreviations that can be used but should be written out in full at their first mention, e.g.: CNS, CSF, HME, PEEP, PCA, SCBU, CTG, EEG, BIS, CVP, PAP, PCWP, ECT – unless they’re only mentioned a few times, in which case please spell them out throughout. Please do not use abbreviations that are clumsy or will be unfamiliar to the majority of readers, e.g. DI (difficult intubation), TTFB (time to first breath), etc
- Acceptable abbreviations that do not need to be written out in full when first mentioned but whose use should be restricted to situations where space is limited, such as in formulae or in Tables and Figures, e.g.: O2, CO2, N2O, HCO3-, Na+, K+, Mg2+.
Numbers and units
Numbers should be spelled out in full when they start a sentence, and when they are less than 10 (unless they are followed by units of measurement). Thus: ‘Thirteen days later, five patients each received 7 ml solution...’ Commas are not used to indicate thousands; thus 2000 and 20 000 instead of 2,000 and 20,000. Please give costs in sterling (£) with equivalent Euros and US dollars (€/$) in brackets.
Use the format mg.kg-1 not mg/kg for all units. Use SI units throughout the text except for vascular pressure measurements (mmHg or cmH2O) and haemoglobin concentration (g.l-1). Litres are indicated by lower case ‘l’ not upper ‘L’. Use the 24-hour clock for times.
Whatever their other merits, manuscripts will only be considered for publication in Anaesthesia if they adhere to the highest ethical standards. These are detailed in two editorials published in the journal, that are available here and here and which potential authors are strongly advised to consult. In brief:
- Approval by a Research Ethics Committee (REC) or equivalent (e.g. Institutional Review Board) must be obtained prospectively for all studies on human subjects, including studies in which participants’ skills are tested using manikins. While some audit and epidemiological surveys, some assessments of medical equipment, and some studies involving NHS staff may be exempt from this stricture if participants are appropriately protected against coercion and there is due regard to confidentiality, publication of the results would usually still require informed consent and assurances regarding confidentiality (including approval by the Caldicott Guardian for patient data in the NHS, or equivalent if not), even if the REC and/or R&D Department has indicated that formal submission is unnecessary.
- While an essential preliminary step, REC approval does not guarantee that the ethical standards of a study will meet the requirements of the Editorial Board of Anaesthesia. If authors have any concerns that ethical issues might compromise publication, they are invited to contact the Editor-in-Chief before embarking on the study.
- The Editorial Board supports the view of the General Medical Council that full prospective written informed consent should be obtained from all subjects of clinical trials, including participants in manikin studies (see above). As incorporated in regulatory procedures around the world, e.g. in The International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) international standards ‘Good Clinical Practice’, this would normally comprise provision of written information to potential research participants, allowance of adequate time for them to consider their involvement and ask questions, and the use of specific consent forms (for the study, not just for routine surgery/anaesthesia) that should be signed by the participants to indicate their consent and then stored in case they require examination later. Authors who do not follow this guidance will need to be able to mount a robust defence of their decision.
- Submission of a case report requires the written consent of the subject to publication, using the specific form which may be found here (NB please do not submit this document together with your manuscript/Declaration Form – though please note that authors may be asked to provide the signed form as evidence, should a complaint result in a subsequent investigation). While the Editorial Board recognises that it might not always be possible to seek such consent (or the assent of the next-of-kin if the patient has died), the onus will be on the authors to demonstrate that this exception applies in their case. Please state in an Acknowledgement at the end of the text: ‘Published with the written consent of the patient(s)’ or similar, as appropriate.
- Studies of novel treatments, in particular drug studies where the agent used is given via unlicensed routes (especially spinal and epidural), may have received approval from the REC or equivalent, but the Editorial Board is likely to reject such studies if it considers that the risks posed outweigh the potential benefits. Such a conclusion is more likely to be reached if the drug in question is not widely used in routine practice (as evidenced by inclusion in standard textbooks), if the study participants are especially vulnerable (e.g. children, women in labour), if there are questions over consent, or if only modest improvements in outcome are expected where other, well established methods already exist.
- Animal studies will only be considered for publication if they have ethical and Home Office (or local equivalent) approval, and have been conducted under appropriate standards of care. Researchers will be expected to follow the ARRIVE guidelines for experimentation in animal research.
The following guidelines have been prepared by the Editorial Board of Anaesthesia to help authors avoid the common statistical errors that frequently lead to rejection of work submitted for publication. This should not be regarded as an exhaustive list and, of course, the Editorial Board and reviewers of manuscripts may ask authors for revisions that are not detailed here. However, adherence to these guidelines in a paper that is otherwise acceptable will give researchers a good chance of publication and help ensure that their work is statistically valid.
Randomisation methods must minimise the possibility of predicting or breaking the code.
Blinding must be as good as possible.
Where there are several outcomes to be reported, the most important (primary) outcome should be clearly stated.
- Justification of sample size should always be performed before randomised controlled trials are started. Details provided should include the power level; the significance level at which a result is sought; and the expected control and study group proportions or mean and pooled SD, in order to allow reviewers and readers to follow the calculation.
- The power of study should be at least 80%.
- The ‘clinically important difference’ that the study is designed to detect should be clinically relevant and should not be set unreasonably large (sometimes done to justify small sample size).
- Use mean (SD) unless:
- Data are discrete (e.g. Apgar scores, sedation scores) or grossly non-normally distributed: use median (IQR [range]).
- You are interested in the ‘true’ value for the population (use SEM).
- Visual analogue scores (VAS) for pain may be treated as continuous data and be subjected to parametric tests as long as:
- The sample size is large (> 50).
- The data appear normally distributed.
- VAS for other modalities (nausea, drowsiness) have not been so extensively validated and are best treated as ordinal data.
- Use simple tests where possible.
- Avoid multiple comparisons, or correct for them if used.
- Reference unusual tests.
- Include details of any computer package/version used.
When looking for relationship between variables:
- Possible simple descriptive association between two variables: correlation.
- Possible relationship between two or more variables, especially where one is predictive and other(s) dependent: regression.
- To compare two methods of measurement: Bland-Altman method.
- In randomised trials, baseline data (age, ASA physical status, duration of operation, etc.) should not be subjected to statistical comparison, since it is already known that the subjects were randomly allocated and that any difference is therefore due to chance. Describe characteristics and, if possible, allow for differences in the analysis and discussion.
- All outcomes mentioned in the Methods section must be reported in the Results section, and in the same order.
- The number of decimal places used to describe data should be appropriate to the method of measurement (e.g. a mean systolic blood pressure of 124.75 mmHg is too precise).
- 95% CI are often useful when reporting differences between groups. 95% CI must be used when reporting low or zero incidences (e.g. no headaches after 300 uses of a new spinal needle).
- When reporting the effect of an intervention, absolute risk (AR), relative risk (RR) and ‘number needed to treat’ (NNT) are more easily understood by readers and may be preferable to odds ratio (OR).
- Post-hoc comparisons should be avoided (comparing or categorising results in ways that were not stated in the original protocol).
- Graphs and tables should be appropriate for the data to be displayed. Tables usually convey more precise numerical information; graphs should be reserved for highlighting changes over time or between treatments.
- Avoid judgemental terms such as ‘very’ or ‘highly’ significant.
- Report actual p values, rather than ranges or limits (e.g. p=0.032, rather than p<0.05)
All conclusions should be warranted by the results and not extend beyond the confines of the study conditions. A negative result does not mean that there is definitely no difference (confidence in the conclusion is dependent upon the power of the study), and a positive result does not mean that there definitely is a difference (confidence in the conclusion is dependent upon the alpha error).
Anaesthesia welcomes both narrative and systematic reviews of potential interest to our readers. Even a narrative review should be a structured assessment of the literature, and should include a description of how articles have been selected, and if appropriate a full search strategy. It would also need some analysis and comment, not just a listing of the literature and reporting the results – and include an analysis of the quality of the literature. Systematic reviews should ideally be presented according to the PRISMA statement and prospectively registered (e.g. on PROSPERO). Larger, more inclusive reviews (not, for instance, limited by the type of surgery) may be preferable to smaller ones with a small number of studies. Subgroup analyses may be performed to explore group differences, but only if there are sufficient studies. Scoring of methodological quality should be performed with the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool rather than numerical scores (e.g. Jadad score). Authors should consider how excluding low quality studies might change the overall results. Heterogeneity should be explored by consideration of individual studies, by appropriate sensitivity analysis, or by meta-regression if the number of included studies allows. For more information, please see Smith AF, Carlisle J. Reviews, systematic reviews and Anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 2015; 70.
REVIEW AND PUBLICATION PROCESS
All papers, editorials and letters are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and at least one Editor, plus external reviewers as deemed appropriate. The Editor-in-Chief’s verdict on acceptance or rejection is final. Papers submitted with one of the Editorial Board members as an author require an additional external review before acceptance. The median time from submission to preliminary verdict is under a week; the time from full acceptance to online publication is usually 1-2 months and to print publication is usually 2-3 months.
When a paper is accepted, the author identified as the formal corresponding author for the paper will receive an email prompting him/her to login into Author Services, where he/she can complete a copyright form or licence agreement on behalf of all authors on the paper via the Wiley Author Licensing Service (WALS). The type of licence/agreement will depend on whether the paper is to be published Open Access, and whether (and by whom) the study has been funded. More details can be obtained here .
Once accepted for publication, the manuscript will be sub-edited by an Editor; this usually involves some alterations to clarify points and maintain house style. Rather than be excessively prescriptive, the Editorial team tries to be as helpful as possible at this stage – with the aim of improving your paper and its readability. The article is then sent to the publishers who will send a set of proofs to the author, Editor and finally the Editor-in-Chief. Changes by the authors at proof stage should be kept to a minimum – authors may be charged for excessive alterations.
Authors requesting to withdraw their manuscript at any stage after submission are required to provide a letter or email to the Editor-in-Chief, stating the reason for the request. All authors will be asked to confirm that they agree with the request, and with the stated reason. Please note that a manuscript can only be considered as no longer under consideration by Anaesthesia when this has been confirmed by the Editor-in-Chief.
For FAQs and tips about preparing and submitting manuscripts and more, and for services like automated email tracking for your article through production, please visit the Author Services website.
This is available to authors of primary research articles who wish to make their article available to non-subscribers on publication, or whose funding agency requires grantees to archive the final version of their article. With OnlineOpen the author, the author’s funding agency, or the author’s institution pays a fee to ensure that the article is made available to non-subscribers upon publication via Wiley Online Library, as well as deposited in the funding agency’s preferred archive. For the full list of terms and conditions, click here. Before acceptance, there is no requirement to inform the Editorial Office that you intend to publish your paper OnlineOpen if you do not wish to. All OnlineOpen articles are treated in the same way as any other article. They go through the Journal’s standard peer-review process and will be accepted or rejected based on their own merit. Any authors wishing to send their paper OnlineOpen will be required to complete the payment form.
Material storage policy
Please note that unless specifically requested, Wiley will dispose of all hard copy or electronic material submitted two months after publication. If you require the return of any material submitted, please inform the Editorial Office or Production Editor as soon as possible if you have not yet done so.
The Publisher, Editorial Board and Editors cannot be held responsible for errors or any consequences arising from the use of information contained in this journal. The views and opinions expressed do not neccessarily reflect those of the Publisher, Editorial Board or Editors, neither does the publication of advertisements constitute any endorsement by the Publisher, Editorial Board and Editors of the products advertised.