Writing papers for the BJGP
We consider contributions in a number of categories. Detailed
guidance is given below for original articles. Much of this (for
instance, length of title, styles of references) applies to all
types of contribution and further guidance is given under each
heading.
Original articles
Title. The
title should be a clear description of the research and should not
exceed 12 words. Ideally, it will include both the topic and the
method of the study.
Authors.If you put your
name to an article you must fulfil the standard requirements for
authorship (see later).
Abstract.All research
articles should have a structured abstract of no more than 250
words. This should be set out with the following headings:
Background, Aim, Design of study, Setting, Methods, Results,
Conclusion.
Keywords.(Up to six
keywords may be included, which should be MeSH headings as used in
Index Medicus.)
‘How this
fits in’. Authors are asked to
summarise, in no more than four short sentences, what was known or
believed on the topic before, and what this piece of research adds,
particularly focusing on the relevance to clinicians.
Main
text. Articles should follow the
traditional format of introduction, methods, results and
discussion. The text can be up to 2500 words in length, excluding
tables and figures. Generic names of drugs should be used wherever
possible. We strongly discourage the use of non-standard
abbreviations for medical terms, except where it would otherwise
render the text unwieldy.
The
introduction should be a succinct and up to
date review of the key articles that have informed the
intellectual background to the study. It does not need to be a
systematic review, but it should avoid obviously selective
quotation of the literature.
The method section should include a
description of setting, patients, intervention, the time that the
study took place, instruments used to measure outcomes, and the
statistical tests applied (and software used for analysis). It
should also include any arrangements for data oversight.
The
results section should contain all the information
required by referees and readers to assess the validity of the
conclusions. For quantitative studies, the section should include
details of the response rates and numbers lost to
follow-up.
Statistics. Results of statistical
analyses should be reported using estimates and confidence
intervals whenever possible, in order to provide indications
of magnitude and precision rather than just P values. Where P
values are presented, so that readers can judge the strength of
evidence for themselves the exact figure should be quoted to two
significant figures down to P = 0.01; any figure below this can be
quoted to one significant figure down to P = 0.001, below which
P<0.001 will suffice. Examples of presentations are therefore P
= 0.66, P = 0.087, P = 0.002, but not P = 0.0005. Corrections for
multiple testing would not in general be expected for P values
relating to primary outcomes or, more generally, primary
hypotheses. Such corrections should be considered for
secondary outcomes and/or exploratory analyses, and either clearly
performed or an explicit justification provided for not performing
them.
Discussion. The
BJGP style is of a structured discussion section, using the
subheadings:
- Summary of main findings;
- Strengths and limitations of the study;
- Comparison with existing literature;
- Implications for future research or clinical practice.
Authors would be expected to adopt this structure unless there
are good reasons for not doing so. Additional subheadings can be
used if they are likely to help readers understand the paper.
Up to six
tables or figures are permitted
in an article. Close attention should be paid to ensure clear
presentation of data to help readers of the hard copy journal
understand with the minimum of effort. This will normally mean
keeping the data in each table (and the number of tables) to the
minimum possible. A rough guide would be no more than five columns
and rows in each table. Where the article requires more data to be
presented, the larger tables can and should be included in the
electronic, and not the hardcopy version. The same general rule
applies to figures. We encourage use of graphic representation of
data, if the original data is also included for the purpose of
redrafting where necessary. Pie charts are strongly discouraged.
All figures and tables must have a caption.
At the end of
the text and before the references we ask authors to
report:
- Funding body with reference number where
appropriate;
- Body giving ethics approval with reference
number where appropriate;
- Competing interests;
- Acknowledgements.
Authors should include acknowledgements of all those who have
helped with and contributed to the study (including the patients)
who are not authors of the paper. Individuals should only be
acknowledged with their express permission.
References are
presented in Vancouver style, with standard Index Medicus
abbreviations for journal titles. References to personal
communications in the text should include the date. Please do not
use the footnote/endnote facility on word processors to indicate
references.
Specific guidance for original
articles. Authors submitting
randomised
controlled trials (RCTs) should follow the revised CONSORT
guidelines, including a completed CONSORT checklist and flowchart
of participants in the trial. The checklist can be downloaded from
http://www.consort-statement.org/. Guidance
can also be found at
http://jama.ama-assn.org/ifora_current.dtl#SEC14
or
JAMA 2004;
291: 125. Authors should
also note the difficulty outlined in making statements about an
intention-to-treat analysis. We acknowledge that this is a
difficult area and ask that authors are honest about handling the
data of patients lost to follow-up.
Papers
describing qualitative research should conform to
the guidance set out in: Murphy E, Dingwall R, Greatbatch D, et
al. Qualitative research methods in health technology
assessment: a review of the literature. Health Technology
Assessment 1998; 2(16): 1-13. Illustrative quotes should be included in the
results section of the text where the themes are described. Since
the quotes are, in a sense, equivalent to the tables and figures of
quantitative papers, they should be excluded from the word count.
In other words, the limit of 2500 words applies to the text with
the quotes removed. To help the process of counting words, it is
acceptable to put the illustrative quotes in text boxes when
submitting a paper for the first time, but you will be asked to
move them into the text as part of the revision.
Authors submitting studies
concerning
diagnostic tests should follow the
STARD guidelines, which are available at
http://www.consort-statement.org/Initiatives/newstard.htm
Brief reports
These are a
useful method for reporting circumscribed research where the study
or the results may not justify a full report. It does not imply a
lower standard for the quality of the work reported. The guidance
is the same as for original articles with the following
exceptions:
- The abstract need not be structured;
- Authors should limit themselves to no more than
two figures or tables;
- The word limit for the abstract is 80 words and
for the main text it is 1200 words.
Systematic reviews
These are
approximately 4000 words in length. We welcome systematic
reviews on areas of interest and importance to primary
care workers. They should be written in a style suitable for the
Journal but should aspire to the quality standards set by the
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Authors may find it
helpful to consult the instructions for systematic reviews given on
the Cochrane Collaboration website http://www.cochrane.org/.
Systematic reviews should conform to the
QUORUM statement and this can be downloaded from
http://www.consort-statement.org/QUOROM.pdf.
Reviews should
include a structured abstract, a statement of the question that you
are attempting to answer and a description of the search strategy
used to answer it. Researchers should attempt to synthesise
results of primary care research either quantitatively or
qualitatively.
Discussion papers
These are approximately 4000 words in length.
They need to be a statement of a new idea or controversial matter
where the opinion being expressed is at least partly based on
published evidence. Unlike reviews, there is no obligation for
authors of discussion papers to be impartial in citing the
available literature. They should include a non-structured
abstract.
Case
reports
We are keen to encourage publication of case
reports. The purpose is to use everyday experiences to stimulate
debate and education. They should describe a patient or patients
with common diagnoses where the presentation or management has
prompted a question likely to interest the BJGP’s readership. The
format should be a brief description of the problem accompanied by
a discussion informed by published literature, citing up to six
references. Where possible, the text should follow the
evidence-based medicine format (Sackett DL, Richardson WS,
Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-based medicine. Edinburgh:
Churchill Livingston, 1997), including a statement of the question
being asked, the search strategy used, and the conclusions drawn
from the papers identified. They should be approximately 800 words
in length, excluding references, and may include photos. It is
essential to obtain permission from any patients whose story is to
be used as the basis for a case report for full requirements of
informed consent) and to maintain patient confidentiality. A signed
statement of informed consent to publish (in print and online)
patient descriptions, photographs, and pedigrees from all persons
(parents or legal guardians for minors) who can be identified is
required. Such persons should be offered the opportunity to see the
manuscript before its submission. Download the
Patient Permission form.
Editorials
These are statements of informed opinion and
not short systematic reviews. Some are commissioned, but we also
welcome unsolicited editorials. However, authors considering
submitting an editorial should either contact the Editor via the
BJGP office and discuss it, or send in an outline so that we can
advise you whether it is likely to be welcomed, and whether someone
else is already working on that topic.
Editorials
should be up to 1200 words in length and have no more than 12
references. We are happy to hear from authors with suggestions for
topics we should be covering in an editorial.
Letters
Letters can be used to respond to published
articles, report original research or raise any other matter of
interest to the primary care community. The best letters are brief,
lively, and provocative. They may contain data or case reports, but
in any case should be no longer than 400 words.
All letters are subject to editing and may be shortened.
Letters should be sent to the BJGP office by e-mail in the first
instance, addressed to
journal@rcgp.org.uk (please
include your postal address). Alternatively, they may be sent by
post as an MS Word or plain text version on CD or DVD. We regret
that we cannot notify authors regarding publication. Letters not
published in the Journal may be posted online on our
Discussion
Forum. If you do not wish your letter to appear on the
Discussion Forum, please notify us when submitting the
letter.
Feasibility and pilot
studies
We are happy to consider feasibility and pilot
studies. They should only report on the acceptability of study
designs and methods, and validity of outcome measurement. We have
decided that it would be misleading to report substantive results
unless there are compelling reasons (which must be included in the
text) to believe that they would apply to the general
population.