Submissions

Author Guidelines

Clinical Medicine and Pharmacology (CMP) publishes English-language scholarship concerning clinical care, medicines and the biological evidence that connects them. These guidelines explain how to prepare an assessable submission and a reliable publication record. They apply alongside the journal's policies on research ethics, peer review, authorship, research data, artificial intelligence, originality, fees and licensing. Authors should submit through the CMP online submission system. An optional manuscript template and a separate title-page and declarations template are available; using them is not a condition of editorial consideration.

1 Match the article to its clinical purpose

Identify the article type when submitting. Original research should answer a defined question using an appropriate design and analysis. Reviews should explain their coverage and selection method. Case reports and case series should identify the clinical lesson and the limitations of an uncontrolled observation. Short communications report a focused finding with sufficient supporting methods; technical notes explain and validate a method, procedure or measurement. Commentaries and correspondence should advance a reasoned, referenced argument and make clear whether they discuss published work or introduce new observations.

As a practical planning guide, original research and substantial reviews commonly require 4,000–8,000 words, case reports 1,500–3,000 words, and short communications 1,500–2,000 words, excluding references, tables and supplementary material. These are recommendations, not automatic rejection limits. Explain an unusual length in the cover letter. A shorter format does not reduce requirements for ethical oversight, consent, reliable analysis or complete reporting. Avoid dividing one coherent investigation into multiple minimally different papers.

2 Assemble the submission package

Provide an anonymous review manuscript, a separate title page and declarations file, and a cover letter. Include the figures and tables needed to understand the paper, relevant reporting checklists, and any supplementary material that supports its assessment. When applicable, supply a trial protocol, statistical analysis plan, registration record, permissions and confidential ethics documentation in clearly labelled files. Distinguish files intended for publication from those supplied only to editors. Signed consent forms and identifiable clinical records must never be uploaded as public supplements.

Use an editable Word manuscript where possible. Authors preparing mathematical or computational material in LaTeX should provide a readable review PDF and the source files needed for production. The submission portal's file categories and any subsequent editorial instructions determine the appropriate upload location. Name files by their function and version rather than by a patient's name. Check every upload after submission; an unreadable or missing file can prevent assessment. Do not send passwords, patient identifiers or unrestricted access credentials in the cover letter.

3 Prepare for double anonymous review

CMP uses double anonymous review with at least two independent external reviewers for research submissions sent to external assessment. Remove author names, affiliations, personal contact details, acknowledgements and identifying document properties from the review version. Inspect tracked changes, comments, running headers, figure labels and supplementary filenames. Cite your own work in the third person, with the same bibliographic completeness as other references. Do not replace legitimate citations with vague references to unpublished work merely to conceal authorship.

Anonymity must not distort the science. Preserve setting characteristics that affect interpretation, such as hospital level, recruitment region and clinical service context. If an institutional name or approval reference would reveal authorship, provide the full information confidentially and indicate in the review copy that identifying details are withheld for review. Restore them before publication. Alert the editor when a public registry, preprint or unusually identifiable study limits anonymity. Do not conceal a registration record or misdescribe a study site to create an appearance of anonymity.

4 Complete the separate title page

List the full article title, article type, each author's name as it should appear in publication, and the institution where the work was performed. Link authors to their affiliations unambiguously and distinguish a current address from the research affiliation. Include department, institution, city and country. Provide ORCID identifiers where available, ensuring that each identifier belongs to the named author. State which author will coordinate correspondence and provide a working email address; a second contact may be supplied for continuity.

Record equal contributions or joint senior authorship only with the agreement of all authors. Give the main-text word count and the numbers of figures, tables and supplementary files. The title page should also contain the complete author contributions, funding, competing interests and acknowledgements statements. The corresponding author must reconcile this file with the names and order entered in the online system. Administrative order changes are not a substitute for the authorship-change procedure.

5 Write a precise title abstract and keywords

Use a title that identifies the subject without claiming benefits unsupported by the study. Include the design when it materially helps interpretation, particularly for randomised trials, systematic reviews, case reports and case series. Avoid unexplained abbreviations and promotional descriptions of a treatment as safe, definitive or revolutionary. Drug trade names should not displace the generic name unless the formulation or device brand is itself essential to the question.

An abstract of approximately 250–300 words is normally sufficient for original research. Structured headings such as Objective, Methods, Results and Conclusions are recommended when they clarify the design; other article types may use a coherent unstructured abstract. Report the population, setting, principal comparison, actual sample size and main quantitative result with an uncertainty measure where appropriate. State important harms and limitations rather than presenting only favourable findings. Do not introduce results absent from the paper. Add the trial registration identifier for registered trials. Supply three to eight specific keywords; recognised medical subject terms are useful where they accurately describe the work.

6 Organise the argument clearly

Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion (IMRaD) is recommended for empirical studies, but is not mandatory for every contribution. A case report may need a clinical timeline; a review may need thematic synthesis; a technical note may combine validation and application. Choose headings that help readers distinguish the research question, evidence and interpretation. Numbering, capitalisation and typographic treatment are flexible, provided that heading levels are consistent and their hierarchy is apparent.

Keep the introduction focused on the uncertainty the study addresses. Methods should explain what was planned and what was actually done. Results should report observations without selectively repeating only significant comparisons. Discussion should examine alternative explanations, clinical relevance, strengths and limitations. Conclusions must remain within the population, intervention, follow-up and design studied. A statistical association, laboratory mechanism or computer prediction must not be presented as proof of therapeutic efficacy. Identify exploratory work and hypotheses that require further testing.

7 Describe the study design and participants

State whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively and identify the design rather than relying only on a label such as clinical study. Give recruitment and follow-up dates, setting, eligibility criteria, sampling approach, comparison groups and the source of outcome information. Explain changes from the original plan. Describe how repeated observations, multiple centres and linked records were handled, and identify the unit of recruitment separately from the unit of analysis.

Account for participants from eligibility assessment to analysis. Explain exclusions, withdrawals, missing observations and the reasons for any difference between recruited and analysed numbers. Provide enough baseline information to evaluate comparability without publishing unnecessary identifiers. Describe how diagnoses, exposures, outcomes and adverse events were defined and measured. Where routine records were used, explain the coding, extraction, cleaning and validation procedures. The availability of a large dataset does not remove the need to justify the clinical question or assess selection bias.

8 Document human research ethics

Research involving people, identifiable human material or identifiable data must follow applicable law and recognised ethical standards, including the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki as revised in 2024 where applicable. State the reviewing committee, approval reference and relevant approval date, or explain a documented exemption and the authority that granted it. Provide full details confidentially during anonymous review. Ethics approval obtained after research began must be disclosed and must not be presented as prospective approval.

Describe how informed consent was obtained or the documented basis for a waiver. A retrospective design, online source or removed name does not by itself establish exemption. Explain additional protections where participants could experience coercion, limited decision-making capacity or unequal access to care. Distinguish consent to participate, permission to use records or samples, and consent to publish identifiable information. Submit supporting documentation if requested, with unnecessary personal information removed. An editor may seek clarification or institutional confirmation when the ethical basis is unclear.

9 Register trials and report the registration history

For clinical trials, provide the registry name, identifier, public URL and registration date. CMP follows the ICMJE expectation that a trial be registered in an acceptable public registry at or before the first participant's consent to enrolment. Trials include prospective assignment to health-related interventions to evaluate health outcomes, and are not restricted to medicinal products. A local ethics application or an internal protocol number does not replace public registration.

Report recruitment dates and explain any discrepancy between the registry and manuscript, including changes in outcomes, sample size, treatment groups or analysis plans. If registration was late, disclose this in the cover letter and manuscript; editorial consideration is not assured. Secondary analyses should identify the parent trial and explain their relationship to the original plan. The 2024 Helsinki declaration also addresses public registration of medical research involving human participants; authors should explain relevant registration arrangements for their design. Do not create a retrospective record and describe it as prospective registration.

10 Use the reporting checklist that fits the design

Submit a completed reporting checklist with page or section references when an established guideline applies. Randomised trial reports should use CONSORT 2025 and its relevant extensions, together with a participant flow diagram. Trial protocols should use SPIRIT 2025. Observational cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies should use the appropriate STROBE checklist; relevant extensions may help with routinely collected health data. A checklist is a reporting aid, not evidence that a study was well designed or ethically approved.

Systematic reviews should use PRISMA 2020 and applicable extensions. Case reports should use CARE. Diagnostic accuracy studies should use STARD, with STARD-AI where appropriate for artificial intelligence-based tests. Prediction model studies should use TRIPOD+AI, which covers regression as well as machine learning; biomedical large-language-model studies should consider TRIPOD-LLM. In vivo animal studies should use ARRIVE 2.0. Identify the guideline and version used. Mark an item not applicable only with an explanation, and retain essential information in the paper rather than answering solely in the checklist.

11 Report medicines interventions and pharmacological methods

Identify medicines by their internationally recognised non-proprietary names where available. State dose, units, route, frequency, duration, formulation and relevant co-interventions. Explain dose selection, titration, adherence assessment and treatment discontinuation. Identify the manufacturer and product characteristics when differences between preparations could affect the results. Report investigational status and relevant regulatory authorisation without suggesting that journal publication authorises clinical use.

For pharmacological experiments, describe the biological system, compound identity and purity, concentrations, exposure periods, controls, assay conditions and independent experimental repeats. Distinguish technical replicate wells from independently prepared biological samples. Pharmacokinetic studies should explain sampling schedules, analytical validation, quantification limits and parameter estimation. Pharmacodynamic claims require a defined endpoint and an appropriate comparator. For mixtures, natural products or traditional preparations, provide identification, composition, preparation and quality-control information sufficient to understand what was tested. A list of predicted targets alone does not establish a clinical mechanism or treatment benefit.

12 Present harms and safety findings responsibly

Specify how adverse events were sought, defined, graded and attributed, and give the population and time at risk. Report clinically important harms even when the study was not powered to detect differences. Avoid using an absence of observed events as proof of safety. For treatment discontinuations, distinguish toxicity, lack of efficacy, participant preference and administrative loss to follow-up where the records support that distinction.

Analyses of spontaneous reporting systems should describe the database release, search terms, deduplication, case definitions, comparator selection and signal-detection method. Explain reporting bias, missing exposure denominators and possible confounding. A disproportionality signal is not an incidence rate and does not itself establish causation. Do not calculate patient risk from report counts without a defensible denominator. State whether findings need further pharmacovigilance or clinical evaluation. Case-based suspected adverse reactions should give a balanced chronology and discuss plausible alternative causes.

13 Handle clinical cases and images with particular care

A case report should explain why the observation is informative, describe diagnostic reasoning and treatment decisions, and provide a timeline with clinically meaningful intervals. Include follow-up, adherence and outcomes, including unexpected events. Explain uncertainty and alternative diagnoses. A case series should state how cases were selected and whether they represent all eligible patients during a defined period. Do not imply that an illustrative selection estimates treatment effectiveness.

Obtain appropriate written consent for publication of patient details and images, including information that could identify a person indirectly. Explain the publication medium and open-access availability when obtaining consent. A bar over the eyes does not reliably anonymise a photograph. Remove names, record numbers, dates of birth and embedded identifiers from scans, screenshots and file metadata. Use relative times where precise dates are unnecessary, without falsifying clinical facts. Include a patient perspective when available and appropriate, and do not manufacture one. Keep consent evidence securely; provide it confidentially only when requested.

14 Explain evidence synthesis and review methods

A systematic review should define eligibility criteria, information sources, search dates, full reproducible search strategies, screening and extraction procedures, and methods for assessing bias. Identify a registered protocol where available and explain deviations. Provide a study-selection flow diagram and reasons for important exclusions. Distinguish multiple reports of one study from independent studies to avoid double counting participants.

For meta-analysis, explain effect measures, pooling models, heterogeneity assessment, sensitivity analyses and the treatment of missing or incompatible results. Describe how certainty of evidence was assessed when applicable. Do not interpret a pooled association as causal merely because many studies were included. Narrative reviews should state their purpose, scope and literature-selection approach, acknowledge relevant competing evidence and avoid claiming exhaustive coverage without a systematic method. Reviews of clinical practice should distinguish recommendations issued by recognised bodies from the authors' own interpretation. Update searches sufficiently close to submission to support claims of currency.

15 Make statistical reasoning assessable

Describe the sample-size rationale, analysis population, primary outcome and principal statistical comparison. Explain randomisation, allocation concealment and blinding where used, and describe departures from the planned analysis. Specify software and relevant versions, statistical tests, model assumptions and treatment of missing data. Explain adjustments for confounding, clustering, repeated measurements and multiple comparisons. Label post hoc analyses clearly.

Report effect sizes and uncertainty intervals alongside exact p values where meaningful. Identify whether variability measures are standard deviations, standard errors or intervals, and supply denominators for percentages. Distinguish statistical significance from clinical importance. Do not claim equivalence from a non-significant difference or use overlapping error bars as a substitute for the appropriate analysis. Provide absolute as well as relative effects where they aid clinical interpretation. Avoid excessive numerical precision. State the rationale for subgroup analyses and assess interaction where relevant rather than comparing separate significance tests.

16 Describe diagnostic and computational validation

For diagnostic studies, explain the index test, reference standard, clinical pathway, thresholds and timing between measurements. State whether assessors knew other test results and account for indeterminate or missing findings. Report the relevant accuracy measures with uncertainty and acknowledge how disease prevalence and case mix affect interpretation. Do not present a convenience sample of clear cases and healthy controls as representative of a screening population without qualification.

For prediction models and clinical artificial intelligence, explain the intended use, data provenance, preprocessing, outcome labels, predictor availability and separation of training, tuning and evaluation data. Prevent participant-level leakage across these sets. Report internal and external validation separately, including calibration and clinically relevant performance, not accuracy alone. Describe subgroup limitations and changes between model versions. Supply code or an adequately documented access route where feasible. A retrospective benchmark does not establish readiness for autonomous clinical deployment; conclusions must describe the tested setting and supervision requirements.

17 Report laboratory animal and biological material studies

Identify cell lines, organisms, tissues and major reagents sufficiently for another laboratory to understand the experiment. Provide authentication and contamination-testing information for cell lines where relevant. Describe sample provenance, inclusion criteria, storage, processing and batch effects. Explain whether images or measurements represent independent samples, repeated measurements or selected illustrative fields. For sequencing or other high-dimensional experiments, state quality-control criteria, preprocessing, reference versions and how analyses were validated.

Animal studies must name the ethical oversight body and approval, describe species, strain, sex, age or developmental stage, housing and welfare provisions, and justify the experimental design. Explain humane endpoints, anaesthesia, analgesia and euthanasia as applicable. Follow ARRIVE 2.0 and report exclusions, randomisation and blinded assessment. Human-derived material requires an appropriate ethical and consent basis even when analysed in a laboratory. Do not extrapolate directly from a cell or animal model to patient benefit without explaining the translational limitations.

18 Use precise language units and terminology

Write in clear English, using either British or American spelling consistently. Define specialist abbreviations at first use in the abstract and again in the main text. Use respectful descriptions of people and avoid treating diagnoses as identities where that would be inappropriate. Report sex and gender accurately when relevant to design or interpretation; explain how information was obtained and do not substitute one concept for the other. Discuss important limitations in representation without unsupported biological generalisations.

Use SI units where appropriate, with customary clinical units added when necessary for safe interpretation. State conversion factors when comparisons depend on them. Spell out ambiguous dose abbreviations, include a leading zero for values below one and avoid unnecessary trailing zeros in medication doses. Distinguish concentration from total amount. Identify species and scientific names accurately, and use a consistent notation for genes, proteins and variants. The author remains responsible for medical meaning after language editing or translation.

19 Prepare tables figures and image files

Number tables and figures separately in the order first cited in the text. Cite every item explicitly by number, such as Table 2 or Figure 3; do not refer to an item only as the figure above or the table below. Give each table a descriptive title, define abbreviations and explain units, missing values and statistical symbols. Supply editable tables, not screenshots of spreadsheets. Avoid repeating the same numerical results in a table, figure and paragraph without a reason.

Figure captions should identify panels, groups, sample sizes, error measures and the meaning of annotations. Label axes and units and choose scales that do not exaggerate differences. Use legible lettering and colour combinations that remain distinguishable without relying on colour alone. Supply original-resolution images or vector graphics suitable for publication; enlarging a low-resolution screenshot does not restore detail. Explain scale bars and magnification when relevant. Include permissions and credit lines for reused material, and identify any element excluded from the article's licence.

20 Preserve image integrity and source evidence

Retain original image files and the records needed to trace each published panel to its source experiment or clinical observation. Apply legitimate image adjustments consistently and explain material processing. Do not selectively erase, insert, enhance or conceal features. Mark splices, reorganised lanes and composite panels clearly; provide uncropped source images when requested. A representative image must correspond to the stated experiment and must not substitute for quantitative evidence.

Identify illustrations that are schematic, simulated or generated for explanation, so that readers cannot mistake them for observations. Follow the journal's artificial intelligence policy for generated or AI-assisted material. Check supplementary files for hidden patient details, spreadsheet tabs, comments, location metadata and other confidential information. An author who discovers an image error during review should disclose its extent and supply a traceable correction, rather than quietly replacing the file without explanation. Image screening may prompt requests for underlying evidence.

21 Provide data code and supplementary material

Include a data availability statement describing what supports the findings and how it can be accessed. Give repository names, persistent identifiers, versions and any embargo or access conditions. If clinical confidentiality, consent, contractual rights or other legitimate restrictions prevent public sharing, explain the specific restriction and an appropriate controlled-access route where one exists. Do not promise data on request if no authorised person or process can provide it. Explain when no new data were generated.

Supply analysis code, variable definitions and other documentation needed to interpret shared data when feasible. Remove direct and indirect identifiers and assess reidentification risks before deposit. For trials, include an ICMJE-compatible data-sharing statement addressing participant data, related documents, timing and access criteria, and reconcile it with registry commitments. Number supplementary items, cite each in the manuscript and provide descriptive captions. Essential methods and principal findings belong in the article; supplements should extend, not conceal, the evidential basis. Submit clean final versions for publication.

22 Cite sources accurately and transparently

APA seventh edition is the recommended reference style. A consistent alternative scholarly style may be used at initial submission when references remain complete and readily identifiable; formatting alone should not obstruct assessment. Match every in-text citation to a reference-list entry and check names, titles, dates, volume, pages or article numbers and persistent identifiers. Verify references against the original source, especially when a citation supports a clinical recommendation.

Cite the version actually consulted. Identify preprints, protocols, datasets and software appropriately, and distinguish preliminary evidence from peer-reviewed findings. Check whether a cited article has been corrected or retracted and describe a retraction when discussion of that work is necessary. Do not use references to imply endorsement or to inflate citation counts. Direct quotations need quotation marks and attribution; close paraphrases require proper citation and independent expression. Permissions for a reproduced table or image are separate from citing its source. Authors must verify all references suggested by automated tools.

23 Supply the complete declarations

Provide an author contributions statement describing each person's substantive role; the CRediT taxonomy may help. Apply the journal's authorship criteria and identify non-author assistance in acknowledgements with permission. State every source of research funding and relevant grant number, together with the funder's role in design, data access, analysis, writing and the decision to submit. If no specific funding supported the work, say so accurately. Disclose medical writing or editorial assistance and who paid for it.

Each author must declare relevant financial and non-financial competing interests, including relationships involving products, patents, consultancy, employment and editorial positions. A statement of no competing interests is appropriate only after all authors have checked. Include ethics approval or exemption, consent to participate, consent for publication, registration, data availability and permissions statements as applicable. Explain genuine non-applicability rather than leaving a blank heading. The final article must contain complete public declarations; confidential supporting records remain separate from them.

24 Explain overlap tool use and the cover letter

The cover letter should explain the paper's contribution, article type and relationship to CMP's scope. Confirm that all authors approve submission and that the same manuscript is not under consideration elsewhere. Disclose related papers, overlapping datasets, conference reports, theses and preprints, giving links or copies as appropriate. Explain what is new and identify shared participants or analyses. Disclosure allows assessment; it does not automatically resolve redundant-publication concerns.

Follow Policy 11 on artificial intelligence and Policy 12 on originality and similarity screening. Describe reportable tool use and retain the human checks required by those policies. Do not list a tool as an author or upload confidential participant material to an unauthorised external service. Authors remain accountable for the accuracy of text, analysis and citations. Inform the editor about potentially relevant conflicts involving editors or proposed reviewers. Suggested reviewers are optional, must be genuine independent experts and do not determine whom the journal invites.

Before editorial progression, CMP requires a valid Turnitin similarity report of no more than 30 percent and a separate Turnitin AI-writing report of no more than 30 percent for the English manuscript. The two percentages are assessed separately and are not averaged. A result above either ceiling pauses progression for documented human assessment and an author explanation under Policies 11 and 12. A postpublication failure established under Policy 15 may result in retraction without an APC refund.

25 Respond to review and prepare the accepted version

For a revision, submit a point-by-point response identifying what changed and where. Address every editorial and reviewer request; when disagreeing, give a reason supported by evidence. Provide a clean revised manuscript and a version showing changes if requested. Keep review files anonymous, including response documents. Identify additional data collection, new analyses, altered outcomes or changes in conclusions rather than presenting them as minor wording adjustments. Obtain further ethical authorisation where new work requires it.

After acceptance, supply complete editable files, final figures, permissions, declarations and author details consistent with the approved manuscript. Authors retain responsibility for checking proofs, especially drug doses, units, equations, names and references. Return one coordinated set of corrections within the production deadline or request an extension promptly. Substantive changes require editorial assessment. Consult the current APC and reduction policies for charges and eligibility; payment has no role in scientific decisions. Send editorial enquiries to cmpeditorialoffice@jandoopress.com and submission-system assistance requests to cmpsupport@jandoopress.com. Report errors discovered after publication under the corrections and retractions policy.

Submission Preparation Checklist

All submissions must meet the following requirements.

• This submission meets the requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines.
• This submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration.
• All references have been checked for accuracy and completeness.
• All tables and figures have been numbered and labeled.
• Permission has been obtained to publish all photos, datasets and other material provided with this submission.

Privacy Statement

The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.

Sections