CRSLS, MIS Case Reports from SLS publishes original case reports on basic science and technical topics in all the fields involved with laparoendoscopic surgery. The journal seeks to advance our understanding and practice of minimally invasive, image-guided surgery by providing a forum for all relevant disciplines and by promoting the exchange of information and ideas across specialties. CRSLS is an online only, open access peer-reviewed journal that employs a rapid review process for all submitted manuscripts so that significant scientific findings appear with minimal delay. All case reports submitted to the Journal of the Society of Laparendoscopic Surgerons (JSLS) will undergo peer review and have their information and requirements verified before being accepted for publication in CRSLS. Accepted Case reports are assigned a unique DOI registered by CrossRef and are citable for referencing.
ICMJE | Recommendations JSLS and CRSLS follow the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) in subscribing to the “Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals.
CRSLS uses iThenticate Plagiarism Detection Software, a plagiarism screening service provided by CrossRef.org that verifies the originality of all articles submitted before publication. iThenticate checks all manuscripts at the time of submission against millions of published research articles and billions of web content.
The publication goals of CRSLS are to:
- maintain the highest degree of confidentiality in managing manuscripts;
- pursue timely publication of manuscripts with the resources available;
- provide strict, unbiased peer review; affirm that editorial decisions are based on the relevance of a manuscript to the journal, and its originality, quality, and contribution to evidence about important medical and surgical questions.1
A CRSLS editor initially reviews all submitted manuscripts. Those considered appropriate for publication are then sent to expert reviewers for peer review. CRSLS uses a “blinded” review process. The identities of authors and peer reviewers are kept confidential. All materials accepted for publication are copyedited and returned to the author for approval of significant recommended editorial changes. The editor reserves the right to make minor changes for clarity and accuracy without seeking author approval.
CRSLS is an online, scholarly publication. All articles have a unique Digital Object Identifier (DOI), which is registered with CrossRef and citable for referencing.
Sample CRSLS: Tiesenga F, Wang J, Crews C. Adverse reactions to titanium surgical staples in a patient after cholecystectomy. CRSLS e2014.03056. DOI: 10.4293/CRSLS.2014.03056.
SLS has a unique model as a Non-Profit self publisher of the highest standard. As such SLS publications can reach the following goals. 1. Highest Quality Peer Review 2. Free (Open Access) readership to all Medical Libraries, Physicians, Scientists, and Universities. 3. No Embargo of any published articles and No fee to any reader, to ensure your important work is rapidly published and read by the largest number of interested parties.
In order to defray the cost of managing and publishing CRSLS, there is a fee of $200 US for each article submitted to the journal. The one-time submission fee applies to all Case Reports. The fee is non-refundable and covers processing and peer-review. In addition, it includes immediate open access for published articles and unlimited pages and color figures. No refunds will be given for rejected submissions.
Please review the complete Guidelines for Authors before submitting. Manuscripts that do not adhere to the Guidelines may be rejected or returned to the author for correction before going through the review process. Authors must also follow the JSLS Ethical Policies and Procedures. Completion of the copyright transfer agreement is required in order to have your manuscript reviewed.
Submit articles for CRSLS online at www.editorialmanager.com/JSLS
- All manuscripts must be typewritten in English with American spelling and submitted in an editable Microsoft Word OR rich text format document (PDFs and other document types are not acceptable.)
- Authors whose primary language is not English should have their papers checked for linguistic accuracy by a person skilled in the English language and medical terminology.
- For style, consult the American Medical Association Manual of Style7 and/or the ICJME Recommendations.1
- Manuscripts may have unlimited pages and color figures.
- Do not include a running header or footer.
- Be concise and avoid medical jargon. Keep abbreviations and acronyms within the text to a minimum and spelled out, in parentheses, when first used.
- Use Systéme International (SI) measurements only.
- Use generic names for drugs.
- Text should avoid sexual and racial bias and should use gender inclusive language when possible.
- All persons listed as authors must meet the criteria for authorship outlined in the American Medical Association Manual of Style7 and/or ICMJE Recommendations.1
Please include the following:
- Title with no more than 75 characters. Do not use abbreviations. Avoid acronyms.
- Date on which the manuscript was submitted.
- Word count for the text, exclusive of the title, abstract, references, tables, figures, and illustrations.
Authors’ Contact Information in Byline Order
Please include the following:
- Full name(s) of author(s).
- Highest academic degree(s) of author(s). Do not include US fellowship designations or honorary designations.
- Affiliation(s). Include only the department, institution name, city, state, and country.
- Address, e-mail address, telephone number, and fax number for all authors. Designate one author as the corresponding author
Authors must state any financial interest they have in any commercial device, equipment, instrument, or drug that is a subject of the article. Relevant financial support and any conflicts of interest must be disclosed by all authors and reviewers. If disclosures are to be made, the author(s) will be asked to fill out a Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form. Important: You will need to download, complete and save the COI Form and submit to the CRSLS Editorial office at email@example.com. Authors must also disclose if the manuscript discussion includes the use of products for which they are not labeled (i.e., off-label use). See below for more details on disclosure of conflicts and relationships.
Acknowledge only those from whom permission to acknowledge has been obtained. For individuals, include their full names and highest academic degrees.
Structured Abstract and Key Words
The abstract should not exceed 250 words, and should not include abbreviations, acronyms, footnotes, or references.
Case report/Operative technique abstract sections:
- Case Description/Technique Description
- Key Words (from the standard Index Medicus MeSH terminology)
Authors of case reports should state the purpose/importance of the report, include all notable parts of the case presentation, describe how the case was assessed and managed, and include the outcome of the case. How the case can contribute to the literature/future patient care should be discussed.
Introduction: Typically the Introduction should include a brief review of the relevant literature to establish the need for the project. The research objectives and hypotheses should be explicitly stated. The author(s) should address the following questions:
- What issue is being addressed in the research?
- Why is the issue important?
- How will the field benefit from having addressed the issue?
Materials and Methods: The methods should be described in sufficient detail so readers can understand how the research was performed. For experimental investigation of human or animal subjects state in the “Methods” section that an appropriate institutional review board (IRB) approved the project. For those investigators who do not have formal ethics review committees, follow the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki8 and state so in the manuscript. For investigation of human subjects, state the manner in which informed consent was obtained.
Results: Results should be presented in a coherent fashion and should be specifically tied to the objectives and methods described earlier in the manuscript.
Discussion: The discussion section should:
- Reiterate the principal findings of the research
- Comment on any methodological weaknesses of the study
- Discuss the importance and/or implications of the findings
Conclusion: The conclusion section should not contain any deductions or inferences that are not specifically supported by the data reported in the study, although reasonable speculations and implications for further research, when identified as such, may be appropriate.
References: Authors are responsible for bibliographic accuracy. References must be verified by the author against the original resources. Number the references in the order they are first mentioned. Cite, by Arabic number, all references in the text. Do not use reference software such as Endnote. Format references according to the AMA Manual of Style or the ICMJE Recommendations.1 Review articles may use up to 100 references. Use no more than 30 references for other articles. Improperly referenced manuscripts will be returned to the author for correction.
Abbreviate journal names as indicated in Index Medicus. List all journal authors when there are 6 or fewer. For journal references with 7 or more authors, list the first 3 and add “et al.” For printed articles that are a part of larger works, include the first and last page number of the referenced article or chapter.
Manuscripts submitted, but not yet accepted for publication, can be noted as “unpublished data” in the text. However, do not include in the references any manuscripts that are in preparation, manuscripts submitted for publication but not yet accepted, or unpublished papers or observations. For articles in press, give the journal name and, if possible, the volume number and year followed by “in press.” For books in press, give the publishing company and, if possible, the year of publication.
Examples Journal Reference: Kavic MS. Three dimensional ultrasound. Surg Endosc. 1996;10:74-76.
Xu AA, Zhu JF, Zhang D. Development of a measurement system for laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: reliability and repeatability of digital image correlation for measurement of surface deformations in SILS port. JSLS. 2014;July-Sept 18(3):e2014.00267. DOI: 10.4293/JSLS.2014.00267.
Example Book Reference: Zinsser W. On Writing Well. 4th ed. New York, NY: Harper Collins; 1990.
Example Book Chapter Reference: Kavic MS. Infections in laparoscopic surgery. In: Wetter P, Kavic MS, Levinson CJ, et al, eds. Prevention and Management of Laparoendoscopic Surgical Complications. Miami, FL: Society of Laparoscopic & Robotic Surgeons, Inc; 2005:97-108.
Example Website Reference: (For journals and books published online, include the URL and the date on which the materials were accessed in addition to information in the examples above. For website references, include the name of the organization if no author is listed.) (For journals: Society of Laparoscopic & Robotic Surgeons. ORReady – It’s the Outcome. Available at: http://www.SLS.org/outcome. Accessed September 18, 2014.
Tables must be concise and self-explanatory. Reading the text should not be necessary for comprehension of the tables. Tables should not duplicate data provided in the text. Type tables at the end of the manuscript using tab stops (not spaces) or the Microsoft Word table feature. Image files are not acceptable. Title each table, cite each table in the text, and number each table consecutively with Arabic numerals. All abbreviations used in the table must be spelled out in a footnote to the table.
Figure Legends All photos, illustrations, and graphs must have figure legends of no more than 40 words. Legends must be typed at the end of the text. Each figure must be cited within the text (eg, Figure 1, Figure 2a, Figure 2b). The figure legends must be numbered to match. Figure files must be named and printed figures labeled with the figure number. FIGURES (Photographs, Charts, Illustrations, Diagnostic Images including Frames from Video) Figures should be professionally drawn, photographed, or computer generated and submitted in high-quality, camera-ready form with good resolution. Therefore, all artwork must have enough clarity and contrast to be reproduced in black and white. Identifying patient information must be cropped out or blocked out of the figures. Written permission to publish the image must be provided if the patient might be identified. Cite every figure within the text, and number each figure consecutively according to the order in which it has been cited in the text. The editor reserves the right to limit the number of figures or to reduce or enlarge figures.
Chart and graph axes and columns should be labeled; use a sans serif font. Any patterns that are used must be distinct from one another in black and white even if the figure is reduced in size. Rules (lines) must be thick enough to reproduce at 0.25 points when the image is scaled to a width of 3.5 inches.
X-ray films, scans, and other diagnostic images as well as photomicrographs must be submitted as photographs. Photomicrographs should have internal scale markers.
- Upload files with a resolution of at least 300 dpi. Line art should have a resolution of at least 1200dpi.
- Do not copy figures directly from Web pages. GIF (Graphics Interchange Format) files and low-resolution JPEG (Joint Photographic Experts Group) files are unacceptable.
- Upload a separate file for each figure. Do not embed figures of any kind within the body of the text.
- Use a common sans serif font to create flow charts and to label charts and graphs
- Export charts, graphs, and digitally drawn illustrations as high- resolution image files (eg, TIFF, EPS, Press Quality PDF). Indicate the software and the version that was used to create the figure (eg, Illustrator 9.0)
- Take photos at the highest resolution possible (high/fine) and upload copies of images in their original file format.
- Scan figures as 300dpi TIFF files
- For color images, artwork should be at 24-bit color depth, in CMYK (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Black)
Authorship requires the following:
- Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
- Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
- Final approval of the version to be published; AND
- Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.1
All persons listed as authors must meet the criteria for authorship outlined in the American Medical Association Manual of Style7 and/or ICMJE Recommendations.1
The Editors of the CRSLS, MIS Case Reports from SLS, expect each author to have made an important scientific contribution to the study and to be thoroughly familiar with the original data. The Editors also expect each author to have read the complete manuscript and to take responsibility for the content and completeness of the manuscript and to understand that if the paper, or part of the paper, is found to be faulty or fraudulent, that they share responsibility with the coauthors. All authors must sign the form that warrants that they are the author(s) and sole owner(s) of the work; that the work is original and has not been published elsewhere in print or electronic format; that the work is not being considered for publication by another journal; that the work has been seen and approved by all authors; that the work has not been previously transferred, assigned, or otherwise encumbered; and that the author(s) have full power to grant such rights. In addition, the author(s) grant to the Society of Laparoscopic & Robotic Surgeons (SLS) the right to edit, revise, abridge, condense, and translate the work.
CRSLS has joined many other medical journals endorsing the ICJME (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) Recommendations (previously referred to as the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals), including the statements related to “Protection of Patients’ Rights to Privacy,” established by editors in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.1 CRSLS also endorses the revised CONSORT statement,2 Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors,3 the Ethics Resource Center,4 the AMA Guidelines for web sites,5 and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals.6 Case Reports are invited to submit.
Those whose contributions do not justify authorship may be acknowledged individually or as a group as “participating investigators” (“served as scientific advisors”, “critically reviewed the study proposal”, “collected data”, “provided and cared for study patients”, “participated in writing or technical editing of the manuscript”).
JSLS requires the corresponding author to obtain written permission to be acknowledged from all acknowledged individuals.
Completion of the CRSLS Authorship Contribution Form is required in order to have your manuscript reviewed.
Changes to Authorship
Corresponding authors must carefully consider the text of their manuscript and the list/order of authors before submitting their manuscript and provide the definitive list of authors at the time of the original submission. Any addition, deletion, or rearrangement of information or author names must be made before the manuscript has been fully accepted and only if approved by the journal Editor-in-Chief. To request such a change post publication, the Editor-in-Chief must receive the following written (e-mail, letter) information from the corresponding author: (a) the reason for the change in the author list, (b) written confirmation (email or letter) from all authors that they agree with the addition, removal, or rearrangement. This includes confirmation from the author being added or removed.
Only in very exceptional circumstances will the Editor-in-Chief consider the addition and/or deletion of information. The rearrangement, addition, or deletion of author names will also require Editor-in-Chief’s approval after the manuscript has been accepted and/or published online. If the manuscript has already been accepted and/or published online, any requests approved by the Editor-in-Chief will result in a corrigendum.
A corrigendum is a change in an article that the author wishes to make at any time after acceptance and/or publication5.
An erratum refers to a correction of error(s) introduced in an article by the publisher. Authors who determine an error has been introduced should contact the Editorial Office5.
Additional steps are required for authorship corrigenda as per COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics)3 procedures on change in authorship. The COPE procedures require a letter as supplementary file explaining 1) why the author was omitted in the first place and 2) containing the signatures of all co-authors declaring they agree with the addition and the new order of authors.
The same applies when an author(s) needs to be removed.
Note that all authors, including the one to be added, must fulfill the ICMJE Recommendations authorship criteria.
Unless the inadvertent omission or addition of the material in an article and/or author information was the responsibility of the editorial office, there is a charge of US $150 for publishing an authorship correction (corrigendum) and updating the relevant databases such as Pubmed. All authors are urged to carefully proofread the galleys for error including omissions of authors before publication.
Authors must state any financial interest they have in any commercial device, equipment, instrument, or drug that is a subject of the article. Relevant financial support and any conflicts of interest must be disclosed by all authors and reviewers. If disclosures are to be made, the author(s) will be asked to fill out a Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form. Important: You will need to download, complete and save the COI Form and submit to the CRSLS Editorial office at firstname.lastname@example.org. Authors must also disclose if the manuscript discussion includes the use of products for which they are not labeled (i.e., off-label use).
“Public trust in the scientific process and the credibility of published articles depend in part on how transparently conflicts of interest are handled during the planning, implementation, writing, peer review, editing, and publication of scientific work.
A conflict of interest exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as patients’ welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain). Perceptions of conflict of interest are as important as actual conflicts of interest.
Financial relationships (such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership or options, honoraria, patents, and paid expert testimony) are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal, the authors, and of science itself. However, conflicts can occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships or rivalries, academic competition, and intellectual beliefs. Authors should avoid entering in to agreements with study sponsors, both for-profit and non-profit, that interfere with authors’ access to all of the study’s data or that interfere with their ability to analyze and interpret the data and to prepare and publish manuscripts independently when and where they choose.” 2017 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
Editor and Reviewer Conflict of Interest
Editors and Reviewers should avoid making a decision on papers for which they may have a personal or financial conflict of interest. Reviewers who are collaborating with the author, or who are working on very similar research, should recuse themselves from reviewing a paper for which they have a conflict. The Editor-in-Chief should have an Associate Editor make a decision on a paper for which they have a conflict. If the Editor-in-Chief has submitted a manuscript to the journal, an Associate Editor will handle all aspects of peer review for that paper.
Plagiarism, Falsification, and Fabrication
CRSLS accepts only papers that are original work, no part of which has been submitted for publication elsewhere except as a brief abstract(s). When submitting a paper, the corresponding author should include copies of related manuscripts submitted or in press elsewhere. Taking material from another’s work and submitting it as one’s own is considered plagiarism. Taking material (including tables, figures, and data; or extended text passages) from the author’s own prior publications is considered redundant publication or self-plagiarism, and is not permitted. Falsification is manipulating data or experimental procedures to produce a desired outcome or to avoid a complicating or inexplicable result. Fabricating a report of research or suppressing or altering data to agree with one’s conclusions is considered fraud. This includes altering figures in such a way as to obscure, move, remove, or introduce information or features. Author(s) are required to minimize and specify the extent of photo (image) manipulation when a manuscript is submitted for publication. The following manipulations are not allowed:
- splicing different images to represent a single image
- changing contrast and brightness of only part of an image
- any change that conceals information
- showing only a very small part of an image so that important information is not visible
Material published by the author before submission in the following categories is considered prior publication and is not acceptable for publication in CRSLS: (1) articles published in any publication, even online-only, nonpeer reviewed publications; (2) articles, book chapters, and long abstracts containing original data in figures and tables, especially, in proceeding publications; and (3) widely circulated, copyrighted, or archival reports.
Doctoral dissertations are not considered prior publication. Data portions of submitted papers that have appeared on a Web site are permitted, with the proviso that the author informs the Editor-in-Chief at the time of the submission that such material exists so that the Editor-in-Chief can determine the suitability of such material for publication. Failure to do so will result in automatic rejection of the manuscript.
Authors concerned with possible prior publication that does not clearly fall into one of these categories should contact the publications office (Email: Publications@SLS.org; Tel: 305.665.9959) and forward the material for examination.
Authors of research and other articles are required to disclose at the time of submission any potential conflict of interests (e.g., consultancies, stock ownership, equity interests, patent-licensing arrangements) and that they accept full responsibility for the conduct of the study, had full access to all the data, and controlled the decision to publish. Failure to do so may jeopardize eventual publication. If disclosures are to be made, the author(s) will be asked to fill out a Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form. Important: You will need to download, complete and save the COI Form and submit to the CRSLS Editorial office at email@example.com. The information provided in this form, unless already disclosed in the submitted article, will be held in confidence while the paper is under review. If the article is accepted for publication, information on the potential conflict of interest–including a lack of control of the decision to publish–will be included in the Disclosures section, following the Acknowledgment section.
CRSLS reviewers have a responsibility to report suspected duplicate publication, fraud, plagiarism, or concerns about animal or human experimentation to the Editor-in-Chief. A reviewer may recognize and report that they have refereed a similar or identical paper for another journal by the same author(s). Readers may report that they have seen the same article elsewhere, or authors may see their own published work being plagiarized. In all cases, the Editor-in-Chief will inform the Editorial Board by supplying copies of (1) the relevant material and (2) a draft letter to the corresponding author asking for an explanation in a nonjudgmental manner. If the author’s explanation is unacceptable and it seems that serious unethical conduct has taken place, the matter is referred to the Editorial Board. After deliberation, a decision is made whether the case is serious enough to warrant a ban on future submissions and/or the offending author’s institution should be informed. The decision has to be approved by the Editorial Board, and the author has the right to appeal a sanction, with the opportunity to present their position to the Editorial Board.
If the infraction is less severe, the Editor-in-Chief, upon advice of the Editorial Board, will send the author a letter of reprimand and remind the author of CRSLS publication policies. If the manuscript has been published, the Editor-in-Chief may require the author to publish an apology in the journal to correct the record. If, through the author’s actions, CRSLS has violated the copyright of another journal, a letter of apology will be written to the other journal.
In serious cases of fraud that result in retraction of the article, a retraction notice will be published in the journal and will be linked to the article in the online version. The online version will be marked “retracted” with the retraction date.1
When reporting research involving human data, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed have been assessed by the responsible review committee (institutional and national), or if no formal ethics committee is available, were in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration. If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach and demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. Approval by a responsible review committee does not preclude editors from forming their own judgment whether the conduct of the research was appropriate.
Patients have a right to privacy that should not be violated without informed consent. Identifying information, including names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, or pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. Informed consent for this purpose requires that an identifiable patient be shown the manuscript to be published. Authors should disclose to these patients whether any potential identifiable material might be available via the Internet as well as in print after publication.
Nonessential identifying details should be omitted. Informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt that anonymity can be maintained. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of patients is inadequate protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are de-identified, authors should provide assurance, and editors should so note, that such changes do not distort scientific meaning.
The requirement for informed consent should be included in the journal’s instructions for authors. When informed consent has been obtained, it should be indicated in the published article.
When reporting experiments on animals, authors should indicate whether institutional and national standards for the care and use of laboratory animals were followed. Further guidance on animal research ethics is available from the International Association of Veterinary Editors’ Consensus Author Guidelines on Animal Ethics and Welfare.
The first rule of peer review is to be courteous. A good peer reviewer makes specific, constructive, and useful comments to help improve the manuscript’s presentation, even if the final disposition is to “reject.” The peer review is both a critique for the editor to determine the disposition of the manuscript (accept, accept with minor revision, accept with major revision, or reject) and an educational opportunity for the surgeon who is submitting the manuscript. A peer reviewer is a consultant, not a judge and jury.1,2
- What is your perception of the science of the paper? “The paper describes … and concludes ….”
- Is the work original?
- Is the science of high quality?
- Does the study have a scientifically valid “protocol and/or study design”?
- Is there enough new information to merit publication?
- What are your editorial suggestions to improve the manuscript (both suggestions of something to add or constructive critique of something to remove)?
- Indicate the strengths of the paper.
- Indicate the weaknesses of the paper.
- Is the hypothesis clear?
- Are the methods adequately described?
- Can you follow the results? Do the tables and images make sense and agree with the text?
- Are the statistics appropriate? Does a statistician need to review the manuscript also?
- Is the work adequately discussed?
- Are the conclusions supported by the presented “evidence”?
- Is there any apparent bias, either overt or unrecognized by the author?
- Are the references complete and pertinent?
- Are the appropriate acknowledgments included (eg, educational grants)?
The final report should contain answers to 5 questions:
- Originality: Is the work original, and does it contribute to the literature?
- Quality: Is the research question or hypothesis clearly defined, is the experimental design valid, and is the hypothesis answered?
- Quantity: Is there enough material presented?
- Readability: Is there a way to improve the work? Is an expert in the use of the English language necessary
- Appropriateness: Is the manuscript appropriate for this journal (ie, does it involve minimally invasive surgery, robotics, or advanced technologies), and would it be of interest to our readership)?
1. Peer-review techniques for novices. Accessed December 17, 2013
2. Hoppin FG., Jr How I review an original scientific article. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166:1019–1023
The Society for Laparoscopic & Robotic Surgeons (SLS) offers AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™ for reviewing manuscripts. Only reviews received on time and judged to be satisfactory by the Editor-in-Chief will be eligible for CME credit.
Features most important to the quality of manuscript review include: adherence to reviewer guidelines, accuracy, specificity, completeness, usefulness of recommendations, internal consistency, tone and mindfulness of the needs of the surgical community.
The granting of AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™ for the Journal of the Society of Laparoscopic & Robotic Surgeons (JSLS) manuscript review process emphasizes the education benefit reviewers (as learners) receive by participating in the manuscript review process.
There is no limit to the number of manuscripts a physician may review, however, the AMA stipulates that a limit of 15 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™ for journal manuscript reviews can be used towards the AMA Physician’s Recognition Award per year.
To obtain CME credit for manuscript review, reviewers must request credit and complete their reviews in a timely manner. They must acknowledge commercial support (if applicable) and financial interest, arrangement, or affiliation with any commercial organization that may have a direct or indirect interest in the content of manuscripts submitted to JSLS.
The Society of Laparoscopic & Robotic Surgeons (SLS) is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
The SLS designates this manuscript review activity for a maximum of 3 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
Participating in the manuscript review process should assist the reviewer to:
- Improve their skill in the critical analysis of medical literature and knowledge of current issues in the field of laparoendoscopic surgery.
- Increase their skill in reviewing and authoring journal articles, as well as improve behavior and performance in practice.
- Evaluate how a research question or investigational clinical application is formulated and articulated in a proposed manuscript.
- Conduct an appropriate review of the literature related to the proposed manuscript.
- Synthesize the literature review with a thorough review of the proposed manuscript thereby identifying its strengths and weaknesses prior to publication.
Michael S. Kavic, MD*
Director of Education, General Surgery
St. Elizabeth Health Center
Professor of Surgery & Vice Chair Department of Surgery
Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine
*Disclosure Information Michael S. Kavic, MD has no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
- Copyright transfer agreement signed by all authors
- Authors’ contact information with corresponding author indicated.
- Figures are 300 dpi image files.
- Authorship Contribution Form
- Elements of the manuscript include:
- Title Page
- Author’s affiliations, Degrees, and Contact details
- Statement of Disclosure
- Key Words
- Text (including figure legends and tables if applicable)
We want to share our information! Just follow the guidelines. Click the Creative Commons icon above for details.
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). ICMJE Recommendations. Available at: http://www.icmje.org/recommdations/.
- The CONSORT statement. Available at: http://www.consort-statement.org/consort-2010.
- Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Publicationethics.org/resources/code-conduct
- Ethics Resource Center (ERC). Available at: ethics.org.
- Winker MA, Flanagan A, Chi-Lum B, et al. Guidelines for medical and health information sites on the internet. JAMA 2000;283:1600-1606
- World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals. http://www.wame.org/about/recommendations-on-publication-ethics-policie
- Iverson C, Christiansen S, Flanagin, A, et al. AMA Manual of Style. A Guide for Authors and Editors. 10th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2007.
- 64th World Medical Association General Assembly. WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. October 2013. Available at: http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/
- Elsevier Policy and best practice: errata & corrigenda. https://www.elsevier.com/editors/perk/policy-and-best-practice-errata-And-corrigenda