The Journal of Pathology: Clinical Research and the companion Journal of Pathology serve as translational bridges between basic biomedical science and clinical medicine with particular emphasis on, but not restricted to, tissue based studies.
The focus of The Journal of Pathology: Clinical Research is the publication of studies that illuminate the clinical relevance of research in the broad area of the study of disease. Appropriately powered and validated studies with novel diagnostic, prognostic and predictive significance, and biomarker discovery and validation, will be welcomed.
Studies with a predominantly mechanistic basis will be more appropriate for the companion Journal of Pathology.
The Journal welcomes investigative diagnostic, prognostic, and biomarker studies with clear clinical relevance, that advance our understanding of the mechanisms of human disease. In general, hypothesis-driven studies that are appropriately powered and validated will be preferred.
As well as original research papers, the Journal seeks to provide rapid publication in a variety of other formats, including editorials, review articles, commentaries and perspectives and other features, both contributed and solicited. In all cases, contributions are subjected to strict peer review. Purely descriptive papers (including case reports and new diagnostic techniques) that do not provide novel insights into clinical disease are not considered central to the Journal’s purpose.
Correspondence relating to papers published in the Journal will be considered, but only if of general interest.
In determining content, the primary considerations are excellence, relevance and novelty. As a journal of The Pathological Society, it seeks to reflect the broad scientific interests of the Society’s membership but its ethos, authorship, content and purpose are those expected of a leading publication in the international scientific literature.
The Editorial processes are identical to those for the Journal of Pathology. For further detail, please see this Editorial: A guide to the Editorial processes at The Journal of Pathology. J Pathol 2009;142:1-6.)
On receipt, manuscripts are assessed by the Editor-in-Chief, a Senior Editor and at least one Associate Editor. At this point, those outside our scope or quality criteria are returned to the authors, typically within three working days.
Manuscripts selected for external review are assigned to an Associate Editor, who solicits two or more expert reviewers. A similarity search engine (iThenticate®) is used to detect plagiarism and duplicate publication.
Authors may suggest up to five external referees, but the Editorial team will not be bound by these nominations. Likewise, authors may state why a named individual may be inappropriate as a referee, again without binding the Editorial team.
The Reviewers’ and Associate Editor’s views are used by the Editor-in-Chief (or a Senior Editor) in reaching a decision, usually within three weeks of submission. The decision letter will indicate whether the manuscript is accepted, should be revised or is rejected. Minor and major revisions are expected within four weeks and three months of this decision, respectively. Invitation to submit a revision does not imply that acceptance will follow.
If authors dispute a decision, they should offer a compelling rebuttal, initially by writing to the Editor-in-Chief
2.1 PRE-SUBMISSION ENQUIRIES
Given our rapid initial review process, we do not accept pre-submission enquiries for original research papers. For guidance on “fit” to the Journal, authors should read these Guidelines and examine recent published issues.
We are happy to hear from potential authors of all categories of
review article (including Commentaries and Perspectives).
Contact the Editorial team via [email protected]
2.2 CONTACTING THE EDITORIAL TEAM
For technical and administrative matters, please contact The Managing Editor (Mrs Nicky Cotterill) via [email protected]
All manuscripts must be submitted using our online system at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jpathclinres. There are no submission or page charges.
Every submission should conform to one of the categories listed below. Use the link from each category to obtain a brief mini-guide of manuscript requirements and format. Consult the detailed guidelines below (also linked to from each mini-guide) for more detail on each aspect of manuscript preparation.
- Original Articles
Original articles are our mian type of primary publication. They are up to 4000 words in length from beginning of Introduction to end of Discussion with up to 6 figures. Further information can be found here
- Brief Definitive Reports
Brief Definitive Reports provide a forum for the rapid publication of highly significant and timely advances. They are up to 1500 words in length from beginning of Introduction to end of Discussion with up to 4 tables and figures. Further information can be found here
Scholarly critical reviews of important subjects within the Journal’s scope. They are usually no more than 4000 words. Further information can be found here.
- In Brief
Mini-reviews highlighting topical subjects. These are usually invited but suggestions are welcomed. Typically 1000 words Further information can be found here
Brief reviews placing recently published primary research from the Journal into context. These are usually less than 2000 words. Further information can be found here
Overview articles highlighting novel, debatable, or highly topical aspects of pathology research. These are usally less than 2000 words. Further information can be found here
This must explicitly state that the manuscript comprises original unpublished work and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere; any prior submissions that might be regarded as redundant or duplicate publication must be declared, including previously published or presented abstracts. The corresponding author must confirm that all authors have agreed with the submission in its present form. Any other manuscripts by the authors that are relevant to the submitted manuscript, and which are currently under review elsewhere or in press, must be listed and uploaded as ‘Additional files for review but NOT for publication'.
Format the word processing document as double spaced A4 pages with an additional space between paragraphs and margins of at least 2 cm all round. Use a 12-pt standard font such as Times, Helvetica or Arial (with Symbol for special characters). Do not use line numbering, but include page numbers in the header or footer, aligned right. Use consistent, preferably UK English spelling.
This should be clear, simple and concise; long titles lack impact. Please remember that many readers will only scan titles, so they should reflect the message of the paper and catch the readers’ attention.
This must be 75 characters or less, including spaces, and reflect the main title and content of the manuscript.
Authorship credit should be based only on 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; 3) final approval of the version to be published. Conditions 1, 2 and 3 must all be met. Acquisition of funding, the collection of data or general supervision of the research group, by themselves, do not justify authorship. All others who contributed to the work but are not authors should be named in the Acknowledgements section.
A statement outlining the specific contribution of each author to the manuscript and the work reported in it must appear after the acknowledgements section (see below).
If you are submitting a REVISION and the authors have changed from the original submission, for example: if additional authors are added [or removed] then agreement of all authors is mandatory, with justification and explanation required within the cover letter, submitted via the ScholarOne system.
Include the name of the department(s) and institution(s) to which the work should be attributed. Append the corresponding author(s) full postal address, phone number and email address.
Authors must disclose all financial and personal relationships that might bias their work; to prevent ambiguity, a conflict of interest statement must appear on the manuscript title page, detailing any conflicts (or the absence thereof) for each author An Editorial on this subject was published in the Journal of Pathology and the same principles apply to papers published in the Journal of Pathology: Clinical Research (Hall PA, Poulsom R, Wixon J. How does the Journal of Pathology deal with conflict of interest? J Pathol 2009; 219: 396-399).
Please see this accompanying document for details of our guidance on conflict of interest, with examples.
Concise articles make a greater impact than long ones and are less likely to be delayed by editing to a suitable length. Full articles should be no more than 4000 words from the beginning of the Introduction to the end of the Discussion. Review articles and special features may on occasion exceed this limit by arrangement with the Editor-in-Chief.
Online Supporting Information can be used for presenting additional material. However, authors must ensure that the main manuscript contains sufficient information to make the study intelligible without referring to the Supporting Information. For example, while it is not acceptable to shorten a manuscript by placing the entire Materials and Methods in Supporting Information, methodological details (e.g. PCR primer sequences) should go in Supporting Information.
Following the title page(s), the next page should carry an unstructured prose abstract of 300 words or less. It should clearly convey the purposes of the study, and the main procedures, findings and conclusions. It should be understandable without reference to the rest of the paper, and contain no citation to references in the reference list. Only standard abbreviations as listed below are permitted.
Below the abstract, authors should provide and identify as such 3 to 10 keywords or short phrases to assist indexing the article and that may be published with the abstract. MESH headings are a useful guide for authors in considering keywords. In addition, authors should examine the text of their title, abstract and keywords since any term not employed in these sections cannot be employed as a search term to reliably identify the work using standard search engines (including PubMed).
Research articles are divided into sections with the headings: Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion. Long articles may need subheadings (especially within the Results and Discussion) to clarify their content. The sections should not be numbered. Other types of articles, such as reviews and commentaries, still need a title and abstract and should adhere as closely as possible to these guidelines.
Authors are encouraged to consult reporting guidelines relevant to their specific research design, in particular:
Tumour studies should be fully compliant with the REMARK guidelines http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16106022 and this should be outlined in the cover letter.
For all types of microarray analyses, follow the MIAME guidelines http://www.mged.org/Workgroups/MIAME/miame.html.
It is mandatory to make the array data available. This should preferably be via a public database such as the GEO or Array Express databases prior to submission (release embargos until acceptance are permitted), quoting the accession number/s in your manuscript. An alternative is to make the data available via the Journal of Pathology website as Supporting Information.
For randomised controlled trials, follow the CONSORT statement http://www.consort-statement.org.
For reports of studies involving animals, follow the ARRIVE guidelines.
4.11.1 Structure of Commentaries, Perspectives and Reviews
These have greater flexibility than standard original articles, but a concise clear style is essential. While most are invited, the editorial team is happy to receive suggestions and outlines of possible contributions of these kinds. All will undergo peer review.
Commentaries are typically brief reviews (2 to 3 journal pages) placing a paper (or group of papers) in the Journal into a broader context. They should be focused, pithy, and accessible to a broader audience than the primary papers. Diagrams are often useful to illustrate concepts and ideas.
A Perspective is similar in form and length, but will have a broader remit and is not necessarily linked to a paper in the Journal. It may be polemical or provocative.
A Review article can range in length from short items (mini-review) through to very detailed, fully referenced contributions. However, a review should be focused in nature and not simply a literature survey: it must have a point!
State the rationale and purpose of the study, with relevant background. The length should be in proportion to the rest of the manuscript and sufficiently comprehensive to allow a non-specialist to understand the setting of the work. Give only strictly pertinent references and do not include data or conclusions from the work being reported. Avoid replicating the results and conclusions of the paper in the Introduction.
Sufficient information must be placed in the Materials and methods for readers to grasp the essential nature of the techniques employed. While detail can be placed in Online Supplementary information it is not acceptable to place all methodological information online. As a guide, information required to understand what was done and how, should be in the manuscript, while detail required to exactly replicate the experiments should appear as Supporting Information.
4.13.1 General aspects of Materials and Methods
Clearly describe your selection of the observational or experimental subjects (patients or laboratory animals, including controls). Identify the age, sex and other important characteristics of the subjects where appropriate. As the relevance of such variables as age, sex and ethnicity to the object of research is not always clear, authors should explicitly justify them when they are included in a study report. The guiding principle should be clarity about how and why a study was performed in a particular way. Authors should avoid terms such as ‘race’ which lacks precise biological meaning and use alternative descriptors such as ‘ethnicity’ or ‘ethnic group’ instead. Authors should specify carefully what the descriptors mean and tell exactly how the data were collected.
Identify the methods, apparatus (give the manufacturer’s name and address in parentheses) and procedures in sufficient detail to allow other workers to reproduce the results. Give references to established methods, including statistical methods (see below); provide references and brief descriptions for methods that have been published but are not well known; describe new or substantially modified methods, give reasons for using them and evaluate their limitations. Identify precisely all drugs and chemicals used, including generic name(s), dose(s) and route(s) of administration
Studies on biomarkers and/ or prognostic and predictive factors must describe the patient selection criteria and provide a detailed breakdown of the cohort(s) included in the study. Reports of randomised clinical trials should present information on all major study elements, including the protocol (study population, interventions or exposures, outcomes and the rationale for statistical analysis), assignment of interventions (methods of randomisation, concealment of allocation to treatment groups) and the method of masking (blinding).
Studies employing high throughput molecular methods, such as microarray-based expression profiling and microarray-based comparative genomic hybridisation, should provide accurate information about percentage of the cells of interest) in the samples, method of nucleic acid extraction, RNA or DNA amplification methods, details of the platform used and the analysis methods employed. We would anticipate that data from high throughput analyses, whether array based or otherwise should be made available via a suitable database or via files in online Supporting Information. Relevant clinical information should accompany this data.
Important information that is not essential for the understanding of the manuscript may appear as Supporting Information online. Examples of this would include PCR primer sequences and extraneous experimental detail. As a guide, information required to understand what was done and how, should be in the manuscript. Detail required to fully replicate the experiments can appear as Supporting Information.
Reliable studies of clinical samples require high quality samples and we anticipate that authors will document BRISQ Tier one variables (see Table 1 in Moore et al. Biospecimen Reporting for Improved Study Quality, Cancer Cytopathology 2011;119:92-101)
4.13.2 Ethical issues
An explicit statement describing the ethical background to the study must be included in the Materials and Methods. Ethics committee or institutional review board approval should be cited, with relevant reference numbers and dates. Indicate whether procedures involving human subjects were in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 1983. When reporting experiments on animals, indicate which institutional or national guidelines or law on the care and use of laboratory animals was followed. Authors should be mindful of ethical standards such as those in "Guidelines for the welfare and use of animals in cancer research"; (Workman, Aboagye, Balkwill et al. Br J Cancer 2010; 102: 1555-1577)
Patients’ privacy must not be infringed without informed consent. Do not use names, initials or hospital numbers. Other identifying information should not be included in text, photographs or pedigrees unless essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. (This requires that the patient be shown the manuscript to be published.) Complete anonymity is difficult to achieve and informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt. For example, masking the eye region in photographs is inadequate anonymization. Patient data should never be altered or falsified to attain anonymity
The Journal recognises that the requirements and laws governing
ethical review vary across different jurisdictions. If any
legitimate ethical concerns raised by reviewers or editors cannot
be satisfactorily resolved, the Editor-in-Chief reserves the right
to decline publication
4.13.3 Statistics and bioinformatics
Data sets should be made publicly available either via public repositories or online supporting information. Authors should provide complete data annotation including all the clinical data reported in their manuscripts using the same identifiers reported in the paper. Authors are encouraged to create a reviewer secured access link to their data during the review process.
Describe statistical and bioinformatic approaches for both data processing and analysis with enough detail to enable a knowledgeable reader with access to the original data to verify the reported results. When possible, quantify findings and present them with appropriate indicators of error or uncertainty (such as standard error or confidence intervals). Sample size should always be indicated. References for the design of the study and statistical methods should usually be to standard works (with pages stated) but citation to the papers in which the designs or methods were originally reported may sometimes be appropriate. Restrict tables and figures to those needed to explain the argument of the paper and to assess its support. Use graphs as an alternative to tables with many entries: do not duplicate data in graphs and tables. Data underlying figures and graphs should not be included in the main body of the paper, but may be provided in supporting information. Avoid non-technical uses of technical terms in statistics, such as 'random' (which implies a randomising device), 'normal', 'significant', 'correlations' and 'sample'.
Open source and publicly available statistical/ bioinformatic software packages, which allow other workers to reproduce the analysis performed, are preferred. If using a self-developed algorithm, this tool (with a usage workflow and a brief documentation) should be made available on request or presented as supporting information, where possible. For high throughput sequencing we recommend consideration of the minimal information to be supplied as outlined by MGED (http://www.mged.org/minseqe/).
Data from array-based experiments must be interpreted cautiously and validated using independent laboratory-based technology. Such validation would ensure that these are not outliers or noise.Detailed information should be given about the annotation framework used by the authors. Versions or releases of databases, sequences and software packages should be also reported.
The checklist for statisticians published by the BMJ is a valuable resource (see: http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/authors/checklists-forms/statisticians-checklist).
Present your results in logical sequence in the text, tables and illustrations. Do not repeat in the text all the data in the tables or illustrations; emphasise or summarise only important observations. Similarly do not repeat in the Results (or Discussion) methodogical issues described in Materials and Methods. Figures and tables should be clearly referred to in the text. Interpretation should generally be reserved for the discussion.
Emphasise the new and important aspects of the study and the conclusions that follow from them. Do not reiterate data or other material given in the Introduction or the Results section. Highlight the implications of the findings and their limitations, including relevance to future research. Relate the observations to other published studies, including those that may conflict with the data you present.
Link the conclusions with the goals of the study but avoid statements and conclusions not completely supported by the data. In particular, avoid making statements on economic benefits and costs unless the manuscript includes economic data and analyses. Avoid claiming priority and alluding to work that has not been completed. State new hypotheses when warranted, but clearly label them as such. Recommendations, when appropriate, may be included. References to unpublished data should not be included.
The acknowledgements must also contain a statement
defining funding sources. This should include source(s) of support
in the form of grants, equipment, or drugs. All of these should be
clearly and fully defined, including sources of materials, reagents
or other resources as gifts.
List all contributors who do not meet the authorship criteria (See Section 4.5). Groups of people who have made material contributions to the paper short of justifying authorship may be listed under a heading such as ‘clinical investigators’ or ‘participating investigators’; their function or contribution should be described.
A statement outlining the specific contribution of each author to the manuscript and the work reported in it must appear (e.g. study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, literature search, generation of figures, writing of the manuscript). If all authors contributed equally, please say so. Our preferred style is: ABC and EF conceived and carried out experiments; JKL and PQ conceived experiments and analysed data; MN carried out experiments. All authors were involved in writing the paper and had final approval of the submitted and published versions.
A list of standard abbreviations and symbols is provided; these may be used singly or in combination, and do not need to be spelled out. For all other abbreviations, the full term for which an abbreviation stands should precede its first use in the text. A list of such non-standard abbreviations may be added after the acknowledgements section. Avoid abbreviations in the title and abstract
4.18.1 Units of Measurement
Measurements of length, height, weight and volume should be
reported in metric units (metre, kilogram or litre) or their
decimal multiples. Temperatures should be given in degrees Celsius.
Blood pressures should be given in millimetres of mercury. All
haematological and clinical chemistry measurements should be
reported in the metric system in terms of the International System
of Units (SI). Concentrations should usually be given as molarity
(mol/L, abbreviated M).
4.18.2 Gene names
Human gene names should be upper case and italic and mouse gene names lower case and italic; protein names should be in plain type. Follow HUGO gene nomenclature for human genes, at: http://www.genenames.org/
Note differences between human and rodent gene, name
conventions, and for mouse and rat gene nomenclature please follow
the guidelines at:
For other species authors should take care to use standard internationally accepted nomenclature and we suggest that authors consult Entrez Gene [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene] to check the correct nomenclature for their species, as it lists the different symbols for each known gene.
If used, a list of the files containing supplementary materials and methods, supplementary figure legends, supplementary figures, tables and movies must be provided after the figure legends in the main text file. A concise title should be provided for each file, and the files should follow the guidance in 4.24 Supplementary material.
References should be numbered consecutively in the order in which they are first mentioned in the text. Identify references in text, tables and legends by Arabic numerals in square parentheses. References cited only in tables or figure legends should be numbered in accordance with the sequence established by the first identification in the text of the particular table or figure. All references should be complete and accurate.
References cited in Supporting information must appear in the main list of references even if they are not employed in the main text, and not in a separate list seen only online.
Avoid using abstracts as references. References to papers
accepted but not yet published should be designated as ‘in press’;
authors should obtain written permission to cite such papers as
well as verification that they have been accepted for publication.
Copies of any papers cited as ‘in press’ must be included in the
submission. Avoid using unpublished observations and information
from manuscripts submitted but not accepted.
Avoid citing a ‘personal communication’ unless it provides essential information not available from a public source, in which case the name of the person and date of communication should be cited in parentheses in the text. Authors must supply written permission and confirmation of accuracy from the source of a personal communication.
The Journal’s reference style is modified Vancouver used by the NLM in Index Medicus. For articles with more than 3 authors, only the first 3 authors should be listed, followed by et al. The titles of journals should be abbreviated according to the style used in Index Medicus. Title abbreviations can be checked using the PubMed Journals database: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=journals&term=. Articles published online but not yet assigned to an issue may be cited using the DOI (see example 4). Online citations should include the date of access. Examples of our reference style are:
Journal article from an issue
Going JJ, Moffat DF. Escaping from Flatland: clinical and biological aspects of human mammary duct anatomy in three dimensions. J Pathol 2004; 203: 538–544.
Journal article in advance of inclusion in an issue
Strizzi L, Bianco C, Hirota M, et al. Development of leiomyosarcoma of the uterus in MMTV-CR-1 transgenic mice. J Pathol 2006; DOI:10.1002/path.2083
Chapter in an edited book
Watson F, Herrington CS. Blotting techniques: Methodology and Applications. In Molecular Biology in Histopathology, (2nd edn), Crocker J, Murray PG (eds). John Wiley & Sons Ltd: Chichester, 2003; 1–15.
Chapter in a book
Stevens A, Lowe J. Pathology (2nd edn). Mosby: London, 2000; 224–226.
Entry in a database
Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man [Internet]. Johns Hopkins University. Record No. 191170. Tumour Protein p53; TP53; [Accessed February 14, 2010]: Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=191170
Type each table on a separate page at the end of the main document; use landscape orientation only if necessary. Tables should not be provided as images. Number tables consecutively in the order of their first citation in the text and supply a brief title for each. Give each column a short or abbreviated heading. Place explanatory matter in footnotes, not in the heading. Explain in footnotes all non-standard abbreviations used in each table. Identify statistical measures of variations, such as standard deviation and standard error of the mean. Do not use internal horizontal and vertical rules.
All Tables and Figures must be clearly referred to in the manuscript text. Legends for Tables and Figures should be included on a separate page in the main manuscript. They should be clear and concise and not repeat material from the Results section. Type legends starting on a separate page with Arabic numerals corresponding to the Figure number. When symbols, arrows, numbers or letters are used to identify parts of the Figures, identify and explain each one clearly in the legend. Where appropriate provide internal scale markers for micrographs. Indicate the histological stain used only if it is other than haematoxylin and eosin. When you submit your manuscript, please remember to copy and paste your figure legends into the "Caption / Legend" field provided when you upload your figures.
Figures must be at the appropriate size and resolution. They must not be included or embedded into the document but uploaded as separate files. Number them consecutively in the order of first citation in the text. If a figure has been published, acknowledge the original source and written permission from the copyright holder, irrespective of authorship or publisher except for documents in the public domain.
Permission should be requested using the official Permission
Request Form. Letters, numbers and symbols must be of
sufficient size that when reduced for publication each item will
still be legible.Shading and hatches should be used with care and
consideration of the final size of the image be made.
4.23.1 Figure Format
Figures should be prepared to fit either one or two column widths (83 mm and 170.5 mm respectively) with a maximum height of 251.5 mm at the correct resolution:
Black and white and colour images – 300 dpi
Graphs, drawings, etc – 800 dpi preferred; 600 dpi minimum
Combinations of photos and drawings (black and white and colour) – 500 dpi
Upload figures as TIFF (.tif) files, using LZW or zip
compression, in RGB or greyscale mode with no profile embedded and
In preparing graphs ensure that appropriate formats are used (histogram, points, box and whisker etc) with error bars wherever possible. Avoid patterned or gradient in-fills in histograms.
4.23.4 Suggestions for the cover image
Authors are invited to submit candidate cover images with their manuscript. These should be clearly identified with file names such as ‘Cover suggestion 1.tiff’ and designated as ‘Additional Files NOT for Review and NOT for publication'. Please note that the space available for such images is 150mm wide x 95mm high, and the resolution of the image should be no less than 600 dpi for line images, 300 dpi for tone images, and 600 and 300 dpi for the line and tone components of combination images, respectively. Authors should also note that the Editors are under no obligation to use any of the suggested images for the cover. One free copy of the issue and the PDF file of the cover will be sent to the corresponding author of the article from which the cover image was selected.
Authors may supply additional text or data as 'Supporting Information files for online publication only', but the main manuscript must contain sufficient information to make the work intelligible without these files. Supporting Information is a formal part of the published manuscript and should not normally be re-published elsewhere.
Our recommended file types for Supporting Information are: .doc/.xls/.ppt/.txt/.jpg/.jpeg/.gif/.tif/.tiff/.png/.bmp/.eps/.ps/.html/.pdf/.mov/.mpg/.wav/.mp3/.wma
Please note that Supporting Information is not subedited or proof read, so authors should ensure that files are supplied ready for publication online. File sizes must be as small as possible, so that they can be downloaded quickly, and must not exceed 50MB.
Authors should provide to the Editors and reviewers preprints of as yet unpublished articles, or other relevant material, that have a bearing on the review of the submitted manuscript. These should be uploaded and designated as “Additional Files for Review but NOT for publication”.
Once your paper is accepted, the corresponding author will be presented with the option to sign an open access agreement (on behalf of all co-authors) to make the article available under the terms of either the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial (CC-BY-NC) license or the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-NoDerivs License (CC-BY-NC-ND). From the 1st of April 2013 RCUK or Wellcome Trust funded authors will be directed to sign the open access agreement under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution license (CC-BY) in order to be funder compliant. For more information on the terms and conditions of these licenses, please visit http://www.wileyopenaccess.com/details/content/12f25db4c87/Copyright--License.html.
The manuscript must be submitted via the online submission system You will need to create a user account for yourself and have available email addresses for each co-author. Follow the online instructions to guide you through the submission process.
All hard copy and emailed manuscripts sent to the
Editor-in-Chief, the Editorial Office or The Pathological Society
will be returned to authors with instructions to submit
4.27.1 Submission of a revised version
Once authors have completed the revisions to their manuscript, they can only submit it by logging into http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/clinjpath and entering their Author Centre, where they will find the manuscript listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions". Under "Actions" click on "Create a Revision". The manuscript number will then be appended with an ‘R’ to denote that it is a revised version.
When submitting a revised manuscript, it is essential that authors include a ‘point-by-point’ response to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided, detailing the changes made. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in responses to the reviewer(s).
IMPORTANT: Authors must delete any original fles from the manuscript submission that are being replaced by revised files, and ensure that the files are in the correct order.
A list of recommended English editing services is available for authors who want to have their paper checked and improved before submission. This list and further information on the service is available at http://authorservices.wiley.com/bauthor/english_language.asp Please note that this is an optional service paid for by the author.
The e-mail address for the Editorial Office is [email protected]. This email address is for correspondence and not for the submission of manuscripts.
Failure to abide by the guidelines for submission to the Journal of Pathology may result in undue delay in the submission, review or publication of your manuscript.
4.31.1 Accepted Articles
These are peer reviewed articles that have been accepted for publication in the Journal of Pathology and are currently being copy-edited and typeset. They will appear on the journal website on the “Accepted Articles” page as a PDF of the edited manuscript and will have a DOI (digital object identifier). Subsequently the full articles will appear on Early View in a matter of weeks, after proofing by the authors.
4.31.2 Early View
Early View is Wiley-Blackwell’s exclusive service presenting individual articles online as soon as they are ready before the release of the compiled print issue. Early View articles are complete, citable and are published in an average time of six weeks from acceptance.
Proofs in PDF format will be made available for download by the corresponding author for checking. This stage is to be used only to correct errors that may have been introduced during the production process. Prompt return of the corrected proofs, preferably within two days of receipt, will minimise the risk of the paper being held over to a later issue.
A complimentary PDF offprint of the final paper will be provided to the author who checked the proofs, unless otherwise indicated. Hard copy reprints (minimum order 50, up to 300 copies) may be ordered online: http://offprint.cosprinters.com/blackwell and hard copies of a chosen issue can be ordered from Customer Services ([email protected]), please remember to provide full details of the journal name and which issue (i.e. volume and issue number) you require.
The validity of the data and the views expressed in articles in the Journal are the responsibility of authors and not of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland or the publisher, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
The requirements set out here are in accordance with the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts submitted to Biomedical Journals. Ann Intern Med 1997; 126: 36-47. A digital version is available on the ICMJE web site.
For additional tools visit Author Services - an enhanced suite of online tools for Wiley journal authors, featuring Article Tracking, E-mail Publication Alerts and detailed advice on preparing electronic artwork and supporting information files.
As a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE),
adherence to these submission criteria is considered essential for
publication in The Journal of Pathology; mandatory fields are
included in the online submission process to ensure this. If, at a
later stage in the submission process or even after publication, a
manuscript or authors are found to have disregarded these criteria,
it is the duty of the Editor-in-Chief to report this to COPE. COPE
may recommend that action may be taken, including but not exclusive
to, informing the authors’ professional regulatory body and/or
institution of such a dereliction. The website for COPE may be
accessed at: http://www.publicationethics.org.uk
If concerns are raised regarding potential misconduct, such as plagiarism, redundant publication, or fabrication or manipulation of data, authors should be aware that the Journal will follow the COPE guidelines in dealing with the case, which, if the Journal is not satisfied with the authors’ explanation, can lead to the withdrawal of a manuscript from peer-review, or the publication of a retraction, and also to the Journal informing the authors’ professional regulatory body and/or institution of the details of the case.
If a suspicion regarding the omission of conflicts of interest is raised during peer-review or after publication, the Journal will follow the relevant COPE guidelines to investigate this, and authors should be aware that this can lead to the publication of a correction statement.
If the addition, or removal, of author name/s is requested during peer-review or after publication, the Journal will follow the relevant COPE guidelines (in verifying that all authors agree to the change), and authors should be aware that a lack of agreement can lead to the suspension of peer-review or publication, or to the publication of separate letters from the authors.