Author Guidelines

Editorial Calendar

Monitor Article Submission Guidelines
ACRP welcomes submissions on topics that are relevant to clinical research professionals globally. Writing an article for The Monitor is an excellent way to boost your professional development, gain recognition, share important information about the latest developments in clinical research with fellow professionals around the world, and help ACRP maintain its role as the leading voice and information resource for clinical research professionals everywhere.

The Peer Review Process

The Editorial Advisory Board (EAB) reviews all articles for relevancy, accuracy, organization, objectivity, and integrity. Your proposal or article will be reviewed by two or more members of the EAB in a completely confidential, doubleblind process; that is, you will not know who your reviewers are and they will not know who you are. The time frame for the review process depends on a number of variables, including the availability of reviewers who have the expertise to review the topic presented and the current production schedule. As a result, the review process may take longer than the usual two to four weeks. ACRP cannot guarantee placement in The Monitor, but the EAB considers all submissions seriously and makes every effort to review articles fairly and provide detailed, constructive feedback as needed.

In accordance with the peer review guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the EAB reviewers read each article in an effort to determine if the paper is original and/or scientifically important, if it exhibits brevity and clarity, if it presents adequate interpretation, and if it draws appropriate conclusions. Thus, they address the following questions and indicate whether there is a need for revisions:

• Is the point of the article original and/or important, and well-defined? After reading the manuscript, reviewers ask themselves if they have learned something new and if there is a clear conclusion to the article.
• Are the data (if any) sound and well controlled? Reviewers will indicate if they
  feel that inappropriate controls have been used, explaining the reasons for their concerns, and suggesting alternative controls where appropriate.
• Is the discussion well balanced and supported by the data? The discussion should be relevant to the point and unbiased. It should not be overly positive or negative. Conclusions should be valid, with reference to other relevant work as applicable. Reviewers will ask the author(s) to provide specific examples if this is not the case.
• Have the authors provided references wherever necessary? Reviewers will ask authors to provide references for any statements that require them. When authors have provided references, reviewers will look to see if the reference seems appropriate for the statement.
• Do the title and abstract describe the work accurately? The title and abstract are the most frequently read sections of any article; therefore it is vital that they accurately describe it in a clear, balanced manner. Also, the title should be as brief as possible, while still conveying the point in an enticing manner.
• Can the writing, organization, tables, and figures be improved? Although the editorial team may also assess the quality of the written English, reviewers will comment if they consider the English in the submission to be below the standard that is expected for The Monitor. If the manuscript is organized in such a manner that it is illogical or not easily accessible to the reader, reviewers will suggest improvements in a concrete manner. They will also provide feedback on whether any data are presented in the most appropriate manner; for example, if a table is used when a graph would give increased clarity; if the figures are of a high enough quality to be published in their present form; or if  numerous text items might be better presented as a bulleted list or in a table.
• Are there any ethical, promotional, or competing interest issues? Reviewers will comment if the work seems promotional or commercial in any way.

If accepted for publication, articles are published in the next available issue. Submissions may be held for use in an issue that presents many articles on the same theme. See below for the editorial schedule and deadlines for upcoming issues. Note, however, that the EAB will review any article on any clinical research topic any time it is submitted.

Authorship Criteria

Authorship credit should be based on

1. substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;
2. drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and
3. final approval of the version to be published.

Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3.

All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship, and all who qualify should be listed as authors. Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.

Authors of accepted articles will be required to submit a short biography (up to 100 words), which will include a description of their contribution to the article.

All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an acknowledgements section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help, writing assistance, or a department chair who provided only general support. Groups of persons who have contributed materially to the paper but whose contributions do not justify authorship may be listed under such headings as “clinical investigators” or “participating investigators,” and their function or contribution should be described—for example, “served as scientific advisors,” “critically reviewed the study proposal,” “collected data,” or “provided and cared for study patients.” Because readers may infer their endorsement of the data and conclusions, these persons must give written permission to be acknowledged.

Submission Requirements

• Preferred article length: up to 2,500 words, accompanied by an abstract of no more than 150 words.
• Submissions must be originals and submitted exclusively to The Monitor. Authors of accepted articles must sign a copyright release, granting ACRP all rights to future publication and distribution in print and electronic forms.
• Articles may be based on research, data, new developments, or informational topics. Review articles may be considered, but contact the Editor prior to your submission for guidance.
• ACRP reserves the right to edit the content of the article.
• Submissions must not be commercial or in any way convey self-interest or promotion.
• EAB reviewers may ask the writer to revise the article according to their recommendations.
• Insert reference numbers manually within the text. Do not use automatic footnoting and referencing. Reference all sources at the end of the article. The Monitor uses a modified University of Chicago Press reference style. Basically, each reference must list all authors, publication year, article title, and full name of journal with volume, issue, and page numbers. If the citation is published on the Internet, provide the full URL pathway for readers to access it.
• Figures and tables are allowed, but those from previously published material must be submitted with a letter from the author or publisher granting permission to publish in The Monitor. Any fees associated with reprinting must be paid by the author prior to publication of the article in The Monitor.
• Electronic images should be high-resolution files (at least 300 to 600 dpi) with captions.

The Monitor uses the PeerTrack submission and peer review system. Prospective authors should log in or register (if new to the site) at www.editorialmanager.com/monitor and follow the instructions to fill in the contact information required by the system. You should upload articles in Microsoft Word, 12 point Times Roman, double spaced. Make certain that there is no author information inside the article file(s). The system will assign an article number and convert the file to a pdf, which the author must approve before it is ready for peer review.

Direct any questions to editor@acrpnet.org.

Helpful Hints, Documents

Writing Tips for The Monitor
Read tips for writing an article for The Monitor.

Author Bio Samples
See what others have written for their article bios.

Transfer of Copyright Form
View a form giving ACRP the right to publish your articles.