Submit manuscript >>

Thank you for your interest in publishing in Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine (RAPM), the official publication of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy, as well as the Asian and Oceanic Society of Regional Anesthesia, the Latin American Society of Regional Anesthesia, and the African Society for Regional Anesthesia (AFSRA). RAPM is a peer-reviewed journal providing scholarly presentation of science and clinical issues of importance to anesthesiologists and other physicians engaged in regional anesthesia and pain medicine. Coverage includes intraoperative regional techniques, perioperative pain, chronic pain, obstetric anesthesia, pediatric anesthesia, outcome studies, and complications.

Important Reminders

  • RAPM now requests that authors use reporting guidelines.
  • Write clearly and concisely, with your reader in mind.
  • Check all references.
  • Refer to the RAPM Manuscript Template for accurate formatting of manuscripts.
  • For instructions on how to present your data, please see RAPM‘s Standardized Approach to Data Presentation or watch our guide to data presentation below.
  • For instructions on how to review a manuscript for RAPM, please see the journal’s guide for reviewers.
  • We suggest that you upload any figures or images as .TIFF or .PDF files to ensure that they appear clearly when published.
  • While you must explicitly state in your manuscript that you received patient consent, you are not required to upload a copy of any patient consent forms with your submission.

Editorial Policies

RAPM aims to operate a fast submission and review process, to ensure timely, up-to-date research is available worldwide. Submissions should be made through the Journal’s online submission system here. Articles should not be under review by any other journal when submitted to RAPM. 

RAPM adheres to the highest standards concerning its editorial policies on publication ethics, scientific misconduct, consent and peer review criteria. The journal follows guidance produced by bodies that include the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). To view all BMJ Journal policies, please refer to the BMJ Author Hub policies page.

We take seriously all possible misconduct. If an Editor, author or reader has concerns that a submitted article describes something that might be considered to constitute misconduct in research, publication or professional behavior, they should forward their concerns to the journal. The publisher will deal with allegations appropriately.

Plan S compliance

RAPM is a Plan S compliant Transformative Journal. Transformative Journals are one of the compliance routes offered by cOAlition S funders, such as Wellcome, WHO and UKRI. Find out more about Transformative Journals and Plan S compliance on our Author Hub.

Copyright and Authors’ Rights

Articles are published under an exclusive license or non-exclusive license for UK Crown employees or where BMJ has agreed CC BY applies. For US Federal Government officers or employees acting as part of their official duties, the terms are as stated in accordance with our licence terms. Open access articles can be reused under the terms of the relevant Creative Commons licence to facilitate reuse of the content; please refer to the RAPM Author License for the applicable Creative Commons licences. Visit BMJ’s page on copyright and authors’ rights for more information.

When publishing in Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, authors choose between three licence types – exclusive licence granted to BMJ, CC-BY-NC and CC-BY (Creative Commons open access licences require payment of an article processing charge). As an author you may wish to post your article in an institutional or subject repository, or on a scientific social sharing network. You may also link your published article to your preprint (if applicable). What you can do with your article, without seeking permission, depends on the licence you have chosen and the version of your article. Please refer to the BMJ author self archiving and permissions policies page for more information.


Preprints foster openness, accessibility and collaboration by allowing authors to make their findings immediately available to the research community and receive feedback on an article before it is submitted to a journal for formal publication.

BMJ fully supports and encourages the archiving of preprints in any recognised, not-for-profit server such as medRxiv. BMJ does not consider the posting of an article in a dedicated preprint repository to be prior publication.

Preprints are reports of work that have not been peer-reviewed; Preprints should therefore not be used to guide clinical practice, health-related behaviour or health policy. For more information, please refer to our Preprint policy page.

Article Processing Charges

During submission, authors can choose to have their article published open access. The costs for open access are $2,800 for members and $3,200 for non-members.  Publishing open access has multiple benefits including wider reach, faster impact and increased citation and usage. There are no submission, page or color figure charges.

Find out if you are eligible for institutional funding

A number of institutions have open access agreements with BMJ which can either cover the whole cost of open access publishing for authors at participating institutions or can allow authors to receive a discount off the APC.

Visit BMJ’s open access agreements page to find out whether your institution is a member and what discounts you may be entitled to.
For more information on publishing open access with BMJ visit our Author Hub.

Manuscript Transfer

Your article will not automatically be transferred to RAPM if rejected from another BMJ Journal. However, you will be able to choose RAPM as an alternate journal when submitting an article to any BMJ Journal; any reviewer comments will be shared, resulting in a reduced time to decision.

Manuscripts will be evaluated separately by the RAPM editorial team, with different criteria for acceptance.

Data Checks

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

Data Sharing

RAPM adheres to BMJ’s Tier 3 data policy. We strongly encourage that data generated by your research that supports your article be made available as soon as possible, wherever legally and ethically possible. All research articles must contain a Data Availability Statement. For more information and FAQs, please see BMJ’s full Data Sharing Policy page.


RAPM mandates ORCID iDs for the submitting author at the time of article submission. Co-authors and reviewers are also strongly encouraged to also connect their ScholarOne accounts to ORCID. We strongly believe that the increased use and integration of ORCID iDs will be beneficial for the whole research community.

If you have connected your ORCID ID to your ScholarOne account, you are able to claim credit on your ORCID profile for any review you complete for RAPM. A detailed guide to this process can be found here.

Please find more information about ORCID and BMJ’s policy on our Author Hub.

Reviewer Resources

To guide peer reviewers in preparing reviews for research manuscripts, RAPM‘s Editor-in-Chief has provided a list of criteria for our reviewers.

Submission Policies

For guidelines on policy and submission across our journals, please click on the links below:

Authors may find it useful to consult our pre-submission checklist. The RAPM Manuscript Template includes proper formatting and line numbers can be downloaded here.

Authors are encouraged to carefully consider the keywords they select for their manuscripts in order to ensure that the most knowledgeable and qualified reviewers assess their work.

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

When a paper has been submitted from the Editor, Deputy or Associate Editors’ departments, they have no role in the reviewing or decision making process. This also applies to any Associate Editors who are authors, in which instance the reviewing process is handled by the Editor-in-Chief.

For the sake of clarity, we ask that you do not use abbreviations or acronyms in the abstract of your paper unless their use is necessary and can be expected to be readily understood by your peers in the field. This policy applies to all submissions regardless of their specific type.

Clinical Trial Registration Requirements

In an effort to promote transparency and accessibility and reduce the likelihood of authorial misconduct, all original research based on the results of completed or ongoing clinical trials must follow our Editorial Board’s policies regarding clinical trial registration and accessibility. All original research submitted for consideration must adhere to the following guidelines:

  • All trials must have been prospectively registered before the date on which patient enrollment began. We do not make any exceptions to this policy.
  • All trials must be registered with a primary national trial registry such as the United States’ or the European Union’s EudraCT. If you do not know whether the registry to which you have submitted your work qualifies, a list of qualified national registries can be found on the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.
  • Your registration number and a link to your registration documents must be included in your manuscript. You must also explicitly state the date on which patient enrollment began.

Additional information regarding RAPM‘s policies on clinical trials registration can be located here. If you have any further questions, please contact the Editorial Office at

Guidelines for Animal Research

RAPM publishes high-quality, hypothesis-driven pre-clinical studies. In particular, RAPM encourages clinical-relevant basic science research that fits well with the initiatives of RAPM.

All studies that involve using animals and/or tissues harvested from animals, the procedures should have been reviewed and formally approved by national, local, and/or institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (ACUC), and are consistent with the guidelines of the corresponding country (countries) where the research was conducted. These guidelines should be in accordance with the National Institute of Health Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, USA. The statement of protocol approval and the name of the national /local review board must be included in all manuscripts. The detailed information should also be provided upon request by RAPM.

In order to assure reproducibility, reliability and rigor of the findings in animal studies, these general guidelines should be followed:

  • All animal studies must have approved protocols that conform to sufficient animal care and use guidelines, according to Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, NIH Publication 86-23, or European or national guidelines.
  • Sex, age/body weight, species, and source of animals must be reported.
  • The number of animals required for each study should be provided in the methods, and group size should be justified, such as by performing power analysis.
  • Both male and female animals are highly recommended, but not required, in all experimental designs. The initiative from the National Institutes of Health, NIH, now requires that sex be considered a biological variable for all experiments, including animal studies. (
  • Animal behavioral studies should report if randomization and blinding (e.g., drug assignment, animal conditions, genotype) procedures are performed.


RAPM editors will not preview works in advance of submission, but interested authors may send a short proposal for a prospective article to the Editor-in-Chief at for consideration.

Visual Abstracts and Infographics

Though not required, we encourage authors to supply a visual abstract or infographic in which the central findings of the paper are clearly articulated and represented. Examples of such images can be found here and here. All images must contain the title of the paper, a list of authors, and a short summary of the paper’s findings that consists of no more than two or three bullet points or sentences. If you are interested in providing a visual abstract or infographic, you must upload it with your manuscript as a supplementary file.

For instructions on how to present your data, please see RAPM‘s Standardized Approach to Data Presentation.

Article Types

Original research

Original research should follow the basic structure of abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, references, with each section beginning on a new page.

  • Introduction
    Clearly state the article’s purpose. Give only pertinent references, and do not review the subject extensively. The final paragraph of the introduction should clearly state the hypothesis and primary outcome. Introductions should seldom exceed 1 page in length. Maximum length is 500 words.
  • Methods
    Include information relevant to methods of research, including statements if needed regarding patient consent, IRB approval, and clinical trial registration. Describe clearly your selection of observational or experimental subjects. Identify methods, apparatus, and procedures in enough detail to allow others to reproduce the results. Include at least one paragraph to the tools of statistical analysis, including how sample size was determined. If the work required clinical trial registration, include the registry, registration number, date of registration, patient enrollment date, and a link to the trial’s registration documents in the Methods section.
  • Results
    Present your results in a logical sequence in text, tables, and illustrations. Emphasize or summarize only important observations.
  • Discussion
    The first paragraph should summarize what your study showed. Emphasize new and important aspects of the study and conclusions that follow from them. Briefly discuss the limitations of your study. Summarize conclusions in a final paragraph.
  • Acknowledgments
    Acknowledge only individuals who have made substantive contributions to the study (eg, statistical or editorial assistance), but who have not been included in the author list.

Supplementary and raw data can be placed online separately from the text, and we may request that you separate out some material into supplementary data files to make the main manuscript clearer for readers.

All original research submitted to RAPM must follow EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines, as well as RAPM‘s RAPM‘s Standardized Approach to Data Presentation.

Additional Requirements for Clinical Trials

If your work is based on the results of a clinical trial, you must observe the following requirements:

  • You must include the phrase “a randomized clinical trial” in the subtitle of your manuscript.
  • You must explicitly state the date on which patient enrollment began and provide your trial registration number and a link to your registration documents in the manuscript.
  • You must follow the CONSORT checklist and include the CONSORT flow diagram as a figure.

Word count: 1,500 to 3,000 words
Structured abstract: up to 250 words
Introduction: 500 words
Tables/figures: up to 5
References: up to 30

Case report

Case reports are published selectively. Text for case reports is usually divided into sections with the headings of Introduction, Case Report, and Discussion, as follows.

  • Introduction
    Briefly summarize why this case demands review.
  • Case Report
    Provide a statement that the patient, next-of-kin, or legal guardian approved reporting the case(s). Provide sufficient details of the patient case study to allow readers to understand the decision-making used in providing care.
  • Discussion
    Emphasize new and important insights that were gained from this case and conclusions that follow from them. Case Reports should not extensively review all literature related to the topic, but rather emphasize how the case fundamentally adds to our existing knowledge.

All case reports should include a Structured Abstract ordered as follows: Background, Case Presentation, Conclusions.

Word count: up to 2,000 words
Structured abstract: up to 250 words

References: up to 25

Brief technical report

RAPM welcomes articles that deal with technological advances in the field of medicine. We are especially interested in articles that explore innovative applications of image guidance (e. g. ultrasound, fluoroscopy, and MRI) in the context of both acute and chronic pain medicine. A structured abstract should follow the title page in the manuscript. The text is usually divided into sections with the following headings: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Acknowledgements. 

Word count: from 1,500 to 2,500 words
Structured abstract: up to 250 words
Tables/figures: up to 5

References: up to 20


RAPM accepts narrative reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. You must state which type of review you are submitting in the title of your manuscript. Regardless of the type, all reviews must contain a structured abstract that adheres to the following format:

  • Background/Importance
    Please state the overall importance to patient care or public health.
  • Objective
    Describe the exact purpose of the review including the exact patient population, intervention and outcomes studied.
  • Evidence Review
    Describe the methodology of the review including the sources of information used, years included, eligibility criteria, and what methods were used to grade the quality of the evidence. An example can be found here.
  • Findings
    Provide an overview of the number of studies included, article types (RCT, prospective observational), and quality of evidence. Provide a high level summary of the main findings. An example can be found here.
  • Conclusions
    Provide an answer to the research question listed in the objectives.

In addition, all reviews must follow either PRISMA or MOOSE Reporting Guidelines.

RAPM highly recommends documenting review methods in a protocol that is publicly available on a register such as the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO). In the review protocol, authors should explicitly frame their clinical question, document their rationale, methods, outcomes, and analyses in advance. The review protocol should be prepared a priori, ahead of embarking on the formal process of database search and all subsequent steps.

All reviews submitted to RAPM that include clinical trials must also have been prospectively registered in a national or international clinical trials database, in accordance with BMJ policy and RAPM‘s guidelines for clinical trial registration. Note that this requirement applies only to submissions containing research published after January 1, 2019; if your review contains unregistered trials that were completed and published before that date, you may still submit your work for consideration.

Additional Requirements for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses must adhere to the following structure:

Describe the rationale for the review. Why was it important to perform the review? How was the subject content important to our field? How will it add to what is already known? Avoid lengthy reviews of the intervention or subject matter; however, a brief summary of existing knowledge may be relevant. Provide detail on the reasoning behind the systematic review such as to support clinical pathway development, address uncertainty or variation in practice or provide a more precise estimate of the effect. Outline the review objectives and aims. Frame the important clinical question(s) in terms of patient population, intervention, comparators, outcomes, study design, practice setting and timeline. Avoid non-specific statements such as we performed this review so as to update the findings from the literature.  Define and prioritize primary and secondary outcomes.

A systematic review uses a systematic and reproducible methodology that aims to minimize bias in the identification, selection, synthesis and summary of studies. Include administrative information such as registration details. Eligibility criteria (inclusion and exclusion criteria) are fundamental to the review process, help prevent bias such as selective reporting, and influences the search strategy terminology. Study eligibility criteria are typically constructed from the PICO (Population, Intervention, Control, Outcome) components, time frames and practice settings. State if studies will be excluded if they do not report specific outcomes. Describing eligibility includes years considered, language, study design, publication status, participants, interventions, comparators and exclusions. Describe all information sources: include electronic bibliographic databases (e.g. MEDLINE), dates included, reference lists, contact with authors of included studies, study registries and the grey literature. Quality searches of all sources of information are important in developing an accurate review of the evidence.

Provide a draft of the search strategy for one database (e.g. MEDLINE) for each search question. Describe the processes for selecting studies (e.g. screening, eligibility) and mechanisms for managing records and data throughout the review. Describe how data will be extracted from reports, list and define all data items; include any adjustments (e.g. conversion of pain intensity scales) or assumptions made. All primary and secondary patient-important outcomes (benefits and risks) should be defined, listed and prioritized. Describe how the risk of bias (quality) of individual studies will be assessed. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool evaluates quality of evidence across multiple outcomes within the one trial using explicit criteria: sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessors, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting and other (with three categories grading the risk of bias: high, low or unclear). Define conditions (e.g. high heterogeneity) that would trigger a narrative or non-quantitative review. If the results of multiple trials are to be combined and summarized then describe the summary measures planned, methods for combining data and plans for exploring inconsistency. In advance, specify potential sources of heterogeneity. Describe potential additional analyses such as sensitivity, subgroup analyses or meta-regression. Distinguish risk of bias (internal validity or limitation of individual study) from quality at the outcome level. Describing the strength of the body of evidence and confidence in the cumulative estimate is important for practice recommendations. Describe how the quality (or certainty) of the evidence for each outcome across the body of literature will be evaluated. A commonly used method is Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Using GRADE guidelines, the quality (or certainty) of the evidence is rated using: risk of bias, heterogeneity (inconsistency), indirectness, imprecision and publication bias. GRADE rates evidence quality into one of four categories from high to very low. Describe methods for combining estimates, measuring inconsistency and list summary measures (e.g. difference in means, odds ratio).

Present the results of the literature review including the number and type of studies screened and include all reasons for exclusion. A PRISMA-style flow diagram is useful for this purpose. Provide an aggregate of the total number of patients included. A table should be used to present individual trial characteristics including: patients in intervention/control group, details of interventions and co-interventions, outcomes, follow-up period and adverse events. Report risk of bias for each trial (this may be best presented in a figure). Present the results of individual studies for all outcomes with summary data, effect estimates and confidence intervals; this is usually done with a forest plot. Two tables recommended by RAPM are the evidence profile and the summary of findings tables (refer to examples below). Both are reported at the outcome level and ideally include all primary and secondary outcomes. The evidence profile table provides a transparent record of the assessment of the quality of the evidence for each factor (heterogeneity, indirectness, imprecision and publication bias) in addition to the summary of the findings (e.g. absolute and/or relative effect sizes, difference in means). The summary of the findings includes the assessment of the quality of the evidence for each outcome but not the detailed judgements. Report the results of all sub-group and sensitivity analyses (if planned). If relevant, consider additional tables that per study summarize how interventions were implemented, injectate parameters, technical aspects, co-interventions, how pain intensity was measured. Consider including a table that summarizes characteristics of excluded studies.

Summarize the key findings of the review in the first paragraph. Avoid simply listing the results but rather provide a critical synthesis of data and information based on the results of the review. Discuss the quality of the included studies and the certainty of the evidence. Describe how the results can be interpreted, used to guide clinical practice and their relevance to key stakeholders. The limitations of the evidence and of the review should be discussed, and gaps in evidence should be addressed. A discussion of controversial or unresolved issues and topics in need of future research can be included.

Word count: up to 3,500
Structured abstract: up to 250 words
Tables/figures: up to 5
References: up to 75

Special article

Special articles are generally commissioned, but authors are welcome to contact the Editor-in-Chief with ideas for submissions. An unstructured abstract should follow the title page in the manuscript. Special articles are usually divided into sections with the headings of: Introduction, Discussion, Acknowledgements (see the guidelines under original articles). Practice guidelines (i.e. published statements intended to guide clinical care) may be submitted as special articles.

Word count: up to 4,000 words
Unstructured abstract
: up to 250 words

Tables/figures: up to 2
References: up to 50


Editorials are solicited. They vary in length but typically should not exceed 1500 words. Editorials do not have abstracts, and the text should follow a discussion format.

Word count: up to 1,500 words
Tables/figures: up to 2
References: up to 10

Daring discourse

Daring Discourse columns serve as a peer-reviewed forum for essays and other articles that address an area of clinical uncertainty, controversy, or dogma in our subspecialties, especially articles that spotlight a research gap that needs to be filled to improve care. An unstructured abstract should follow the title page. Text for Daring Discourse is usually divided into sections with the headings of Introduction, Discussion, and Acknowledgements. 

RAPM especially encourages a pair of authors to submit together in the form of a “Yes” and “No” format on the topic of interest. Each author will take an opposite perspective and allow full exploration of the issue at hand for the readership to examine. For example, with respect to the topic of cannabinoids for acute pain: Author 1 “YES, cannabinoids should be utilized for acute pain management” and Author 2 “NO, cannabinoids should NOT be used for acute pain management”.

Word count: 1,500 to 2,500 words
Unstructured abstract: up to 250 words
References: up to 25

Book review

Book reviews are generally solicited. Interested parties may query the Editor-in-Chief. The text of a book or media review should follow a discussion format.

Word count: up to 100


The title of the letter should appear at the top of the page in bold. The letter should be addressed “To the Editor:”. The text for letters to the editor should follow a letter format. If the correspondence describes a case(s), provide a statement that the patient, next-of-kin, or legal guardian approved reporting the case(s).

Please note that Letters should not be used to communicate original research, case reports, or case series. Only Letters communicating concerns or thoughts pertaining to research published in RAPM or timely issues related to regional anesthesia and pain management will be considered.

After the main body of the letter, the following information should appear:

  • Full name and highest degree of Author(s) (eg, John G. Smith, MD)
  • Institutional Department (eg, Department of Anesthesiology)
  • Name of Institution (eg, Virginia Mason Medical Center)
  • City and State, or, in the case of submissions from outside the United States, City and Country (eg, Seattle, Washington; Dublin, Ireland)

References should appear after the author names and affiliations, followed by the table and figure legend, if any.

Word count: up to 600 words
Tables/figures: up to 1
References: up to 6

Invited reply letter

On occasion, the Editor-in-Chief will invite authors to write a letter that directly responds to a recent publication. Such a letter can fall under one of two categories: an invited reply from a reader to a previously published paper, and an invited response from the authors of a published paper to a letter about their work. If you are asked to write a response to a letter about a paper you authored, you must submit your manuscript within two weeks of accepting your invitation.

The title of the letter should appear at the top of the page in bold. The letter should be addressed “To the Editor:” The text for letters to the editor should follow a letter format. If the correspondence describes a case(s), provide a statement that the patient, next-of-kin, or legal guardian approved reporting the case(s).

After the main body of the letter, the following information should appear:

  • Full name and highest degree of Author(s) (eg, John G. Smith, MD)
  • Institutional Department (eg, Department of Anesthesiology)
  • Name of Institution (eg, Virginia Mason Medical Center)
  • City and State, or, in the case of submissions from outside the United States, City and Country (eg, Seattle, Washington; Dublin, Ireland)

References should appear after the author names and affiliations and should cite the letter to which the author is replying, followed by the table and figure legend, if any.

Word count: up to 600 words
Tables/figures: up to 1
References: up to 6

Research report

A research report is an excellent way to efficiently communicate key findings from original research. The submission requirements mandate authors write impactfully and succinctly.

Research reports are reserved for original research of any study design. They are not meant for opinion articles, technical reports, position statements, or review articles. The report should have the same structure as an original research submission (i.e., Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion). It should not have an abstract.

Word count: up to 600 words
Tables/figures: up to 2
References: up to 6

Education article

RAPM publishes education articles that address timely topics related to clinical care, patient safety, and learning. Articles should focus on areas of broad appeal across the spectrum of acute and chronic pain medicine.  We are especially interested in supporting articles related to educational needs assessment, curriculum design, and the assessment of learning outcomes. RAPM Education manuscripts will typically be by invitation from the Editorial Board. However, potential authors may contact the Editor-in-Chief to suggest a topic for consideration. Please include an unstructured abstract with your submission.

Word count: up to 4,000 words
Tables/figures: up to 4
References: up to 20


Journals from BMJ are willing to consider publishing supplements. Supplement proposals may be made at the request of:

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • BMJ Publishing Group itself may have proposals for supplements where sponsorship may be necessary.
  • 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).