Publication Types

Last Updated: October 2026

ETFLIN accepts a range of scholarly publication types to accommodate different research designs, evidence synthesis approaches, clinical observations, methodological contributions, and forms of academic discussion. Each publication type serves a distinct purpose and must be appropriate to the scope, objectives, and readership of the relevant journal.

Selecting the correct publication type helps establish the appropriate expectations for manuscript structure, evidence, reporting standards, editorial assessment, and peer review. However, the selection of a publication type does not guarantee acceptance or exempt a manuscript from the journal's scholarly, ethical, and editorial requirements.

The availability of specific publication types varies across ETFLIN journals. Authors must consult the relevant journal's submission system and author instructions to determine which categories are available. The descriptions below provide the general framework used across ETFLIN's journal portfolio; journal-specific requirements take precedence where a particular category is defined differently or is not offered.

General Principles

All submissions must make a meaningful contribution appropriate to the selected publication type and the scope of the target journal. The contribution may consist of original empirical findings, a rigorous synthesis of existing evidence, a detailed clinical observation, a methodological development, a scholarly critique, or another form of work recognized by the journal.

Authors must select a category that accurately represents the content and purpose of their manuscripts. A manuscript's title, abstract, methods, results, and conclusions must be consistent with the category selected during submission.

Publication types describe the form and purpose of a scholarly contribution, while research designs describe how the underlying investigation was conducted. For example, an experimental study, observational study, survey, computational investigation, or bibliometric analysis may be reported as a Research Article when it meets the relevant requirements. Similarly, a systematic review and a meta-analysis belong to evidence synthesis, even when a journal's submission system uses a broader category or a separate designation.

ETFLIN may reclassify a submission, request structural revisions, or recommend another publication format when the selected category does not accurately reflect the manuscript. Such a change does not automatically imply that the manuscript is unsuitable for publication; its suitability remains subject to editorial assessment.

Authors must report their methods, findings, sources, limitations, and conclusions transparently. Where an established reporting guideline is relevant to the study design, authors should follow the appropriate guideline and provide the requested checklist or supporting documentation when required by the journal.

Research Article

A Research Article reports original scholarly research and provides sufficient methodological and evidentiary detail for readers to understand how the investigation was conducted and how its conclusions were reached.

Research Articles may include experimental studies, laboratory investigations, field studies, observational research, surveys, computational or in-silico investigations, applied research, and other original empirical or analytical work appropriate to the journal's scope. The defining feature is a substantive research contribution supported by a clearly described method and an appropriate analysis of the resulting evidence.

A manuscript reporting original research should generally identify the research problem, establish the rationale and objectives, describe the methods, present the results, and discuss their significance and limitations. An Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (IMRAD) structure is appropriate for many empirical investigations, although alternative structures may be necessary for particular disciplines and research designs.

Research Articles should clearly distinguish observations from interpretation, report results accurately, acknowledge methodological limitations, and avoid conclusions that exceed the evidence. Authors should provide sufficient information about the study population or materials, procedures, analytical methods, relevant controls, statistical techniques, and reproducibility of the work.

Research Articles must not rely solely on a narrative description of existing literature when the stated contribution requires original investigation. Conversely, the absence of newly collected experimental data does not automatically make a manuscript unsuitable as a Research Article if the journal accepts original computational, analytical, or other forms of research based on existing data.

Bibliometric Analysis

Bibliometric analyses may be submitted as Research Articles when they provide a rigorous and meaningful quantitative analysis of scholarly publications, citation patterns, research networks, or trends within a defined field.

Authors should identify the databases used, search strategy, search date, eligibility criteria, document types included, data cleaning procedures, analytical methods, and software or tools used where relevant. The manuscript should explain how records were selected and processed and how the resulting indicators or visualizations support the conclusions.

A collection of publication counts, citation rankings, keyword maps, or co-authorship networks without a sufficiently developed research question and interpretation may not constitute an adequate scholarly contribution. Bibliometric analyses should explain what the results reveal, how they relate to existing knowledge, and what limitations arise from database coverage, search choices, citation practices, or analytical assumptions.

Classification of Research Articles and Evidence Synthesis

The Research Article category may accommodate different research designs, but evidence synthesis should be classified according to the relevant journal's available submission categories. ETFLIN generally distinguishes original empirical or analytical research from systematic reviews and other forms of evidence synthesis.

Where a journal provides a dedicated category for systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or bibliometric analyses, authors should use that category when appropriate. Where the submission system uses a broader Research Article or Review designation, authors should follow the journal's specific instructions.

Review and Evidence Synthesis

Review articles provide a critical, analytical, or systematic synthesis of existing knowledge. Rather than reporting a new primary investigation, they organize, evaluate, compare, or interpret existing literature to clarify the state of knowledge, assess the strength of evidence, identify limitations, or establish directions for further research.

A review must provide an identifiable scholarly contribution beyond a collection of summaries. Its conclusions should be supported by relevant literature and should distinguish established findings from unresolved questions, conflicting evidence, and the authors' interpretation.

ETFLIN recognizes the following review formats where offered by the relevant journal.

Narrative Review

A Narrative Review provides an interpretative overview of a defined subject using relevant published literature. It may be appropriate when the purpose is to explain a topic, synthesize concepts, discuss the development of a field, or evaluate the implications of selected evidence.

Authors should define the subject and purpose of the review, use appropriate and sufficiently current references, and explain the basis for selecting the literature discussed. Although a narrative review does not necessarily use a formal systematic search, it should avoid presenting a selective or unbalanced account as though it represented the complete body of evidence.

Critical Review

A Critical Review examines existing literature through a reasoned assessment of concepts, methods, findings, assumptions, and interpretations. It should identify meaningful strengths and limitations in the evidence and explain areas of agreement, disagreement, uncertainty, or methodological weakness.

A critical review should provide substantive analysis rather than merely list the limitations of individual studies. Criticism of previous research must be supported by evidence and should accurately represent the work being discussed.

Systematic Review

A Systematic Review addresses a focused research question through a predefined, transparent, and reproducible process for identifying, selecting, evaluating, and synthesizing relevant evidence.

Authors should describe the information sources and search strategies, search dates, eligibility criteria, study selection process, data extraction procedures, and methods used to assess the quality or risk of bias of included studies, as applicable.

The review should explain how exclusions and disagreements were handled and acknowledge limitations in the available evidence or review process. Protocol registration or publication should be reported where applicable, and any material deviations from a predefined protocol should be explained.

Systematic reviews should follow the relevant reporting guidance, such as PRISMA, where applicable. The use of a reporting checklist does not replace the need for a scientifically appropriate review methodology.

Scoping Review

A Scoping Review maps the breadth, nature, and characteristics of evidence available on a defined topic. It may be used to identify research areas, clarify key concepts, describe the range of methods used in a field, and identify gaps that warrant further investigation.

Scoping reviews should provide a clear rationale and research questions, a transparent search strategy, eligibility criteria, a reproducible selection process, and an appropriate method for charting and presenting the evidence.

Authors should distinguish the purpose of a scoping review from that of a systematic review designed to answer a focused question about effects, associations, or other outcomes. A scoping review should not imply that it has established the effectiveness of an intervention or the certainty of a conclusion unless the methodology supports that claim.

PRISMA-ScR may be appropriate for reporting scoping reviews.

Meta-analysis

A Meta-analysis uses statistical methods to combine findings from multiple studies addressing a sufficiently comparable research question. It is generally conducted as part of a systematic review or another clearly justified evidence synthesis. A meta-analysis should be registered on PROSPERO and follow the methodology and schedule specified in the registration.

Authors should describe the eligibility criteria, data extraction, effect measures, statistical model, methods for assessing heterogeneity, and relevant sensitivity or subgroup analyses. Potential publication bias, methodological differences between studies, and other limitations affecting the interpretation of pooled results should be addressed where applicable.

The analysis must justify whether the included studies are sufficiently comparable for statistical synthesis. Combining results does not automatically produce more reliable evidence if important differences between study populations, designs, interventions, outcomes, or measurement methods are not adequately considered.

Meta-analyses should follow the appropriate reporting guidance, including PRISMA where applicable. The relevant journal may classify a meta-analysis as a Review, a separate evidence synthesis category, or another designated article type within its submission system.

Mini Review

A Mini Review provides a concise synthesis of a narrowly defined topic. It is intended to deliver a focused overview of important developments, emerging evidence, or a specific question without the broader coverage expected of a full-length review.

A Mini Review must still demonstrate a clear purpose, appropriate literature selection, accurate interpretation, and a meaningful contribution. Brevity does not justify omitting important contradictory evidence, relying on inadequate references, or making unsupported generalizations.

The permitted length, reference limits, figures, and structural requirements are determined by the relevant journal.

Other Review Formats

A journal may offer additional review formats when justified by its scope and editorial objectives. Authors should not assume that a particular review subtype is accepted by every ETFLIN journal.

Where a submission does not fit the available categories, authors should select the closest appropriate category and describe the review methodology accurately. The editor may determine the final classification during editorial assessment.

Case Report

A Case Report presents a detailed account of an individual clinical case or another scientifically meaningful, case-based observation within the scope of the journal. It may describe an unusual presentation, a diagnostic challenge, an unexpected outcome, an adverse event, a distinctive treatment response, or another observation that provides a relevant clinical or scientific lesson.

A Case Report should explain why the case is informative, provide sufficient clinical or contextual information to support the discussion, and distinguish the observed facts from possible explanations or hypotheses. The discussion should relate the case to relevant literature without overstating the implications of a single observation.

Case Reports must protect the confidentiality and privacy of the individuals concerned. Identifiable information must be omitted unless its inclusion is necessary and appropriately authorized. Informed consent for publication must be obtained when required by the applicable ethical standards, particularly where a person could reasonably be identified from images, clinical details, or case descriptions.

Authors must report any applicable ethics review, consent procedures, and other relevant safeguards. The absence of a requirement for formal ethics review must be assessed according to applicable regulations and institutional requirements rather than assumed solely because the manuscript describes an individual case.

CARE may be an appropriate reporting guideline for clinical case reports.

Case Series

A Case Series describes multiple cases sharing a relevant clinical, pathological, diagnostic, treatment-related, or other characteristic. It may be used to identify patterns, describe outcomes, report rare or emerging observations, or generate hypotheses for further research.

The manuscript should clearly define how cases were identified and selected, the period and setting in which the cases were observed, the relevant inclusion criteria, the information collected, and the approach used to summarize the findings.

Authors should disclose the completeness of case inclusion, missing information, follow-up limitations, and any other factors that may influence interpretation. A Case Series must distinguish descriptive observations from causal conclusions. Where there is no appropriate comparator group or other basis for causal inference, the manuscript should not claim that an intervention caused a particular outcome.

Ethical approval, consent, and confidentiality requirements must be addressed according to the nature of the cases and applicable regulations. Appropriate case-series reporting guidance should be followed where available and relevant.

Clinical Trial

A Clinical Trial reports a planned investigation in which participants are prospectively assigned to one or more health-related interventions to assess their effects on health outcomes. Depending on its design, a trial may use randomization, a comparator group, a single-arm design, or another appropriate intervention framework.

Clinical Trial manuscripts must describe the trial design, objectives, participants, interventions, comparator conditions where applicable, outcomes, sample-size considerations, statistical methods, and relevant procedures for monitoring safety. The manuscript should report deviations from the protocol, participant withdrawals, missing data, adverse events, and other information needed to interpret the findings.

Trials involving human participants must comply with applicable ethical and regulatory requirements. Authors must report the relevant ethics approval and informed consent procedures and provide a public trial registration identifier where registration is required by the applicable standards and journal policy. Check our 

For trials subject to prospective registration requirements, registration should occur before the first participant is enrolled, in accordance with the applicable rules. Authors must disclose the registry, registration identifier, registration date, and any relevant discrepancies between the registered protocol and the reported study.

Clinical trials should follow CONSORT or an appropriate extension where applicable. The ICMJE Recommendations provide relevant guidance on clinical trial registration and the reporting of medical research. Applicable national regulations and ethical requirements remain controlling where they impose additional obligations.

The selection of Clinical Trial as a publication type does not replace the obligation to report study limitations accurately or to ensure that conclusions are supported by the results.

Technical Note

A Technical Note presents a focused methodological, technical, or procedural contribution. It may describe a new technique, a meaningful modification of an existing procedure, an analytical improvement, a specialized instrument or tool, or a practical solution to a defined technical problem.

The manuscript should explain the problem addressed, the rationale for the proposed approach, the procedures or components involved, and the evidence supporting its performance. Where relevant, authors should compare the method with existing approaches and report validation results, reproducibility, advantages, limitations, and conditions under which the method can be used.

A Technical Note should be concise and focused, but it must contain sufficient technical detail for qualified readers to understand and evaluate the approach. The use of a new instrument, software package, or routine procedural variation does not automatically constitute a publishable technical contribution.

Claims of improved accuracy, efficiency, sensitivity, reliability, or other performance characteristics must be supported by appropriate evidence. A Technical Note must not present an unvalidated procedure as established practice or omit limitations that materially affect its use.

Editorial

An Editorial provides a scholarly perspective on a topic relevant to the journal, its readership, or the broader research community. It may discuss emerging developments, methodological challenges, research priorities, policy changes, or the implications of significant developments in a field.

Editorials should present a clear purpose, a coherent argument, and an appropriate basis for their conclusions. Factual and scientific claims must be supported by relevant references or evidence. Where the text presents an opinion or recommendation, it should be distinguishable from established evidence.

Editorials may be commissioned, invited, or considered through another process established by the relevant journal. Their submission and review arrangements may differ from those used for original research, but the journal must apply an appropriate editorial assessment and disclose any exception to its usual peer-review process.

Editorials must not be used to promote undisclosed commercial interests, provide unsupported personal attacks, or substitute unsubstantiated opinion for scholarly analysis. Authors must disclose relevant competing interests.

Public Insight

A Public Insight article provides an evidence-informed discussion of an issue relevant to public policy, professional practice, community welfare, social development, or the broader public understanding of science.

This format aims to connect research findings and informed analysis with practical questions or public concerns. It may explain the implications of available evidence, discuss implementation challenges, evaluate policy options, or identify issues requiring further research and public attention.

Public Insight articles should identify the issue being addressed, establish its relevance, use credible sources, and distinguish evidence-based conclusions from the author's interpretation or recommendations. Where scientific studies are cited, their findings must be represented accurately and in context.

This category is not intended for unsupported opinion, promotional content, political campaigning, news reporting without scholarly analysis, or personal commentary unrelated to the journal's scope. Recommendations should acknowledge uncertainty, competing interpretations, and limitations in the available evidence.

The appropriate level of peer review or editorial assessment will be determined by the journal's stated procedures and the nature of the submission. The selection of Public Insight does not exempt a manuscript from ethical review of its content, competing-interest disclosure, or the journal's publication standards.

Pictorial Essay

A Pictorial Essay is a visual-focused scholarly contribution in which images, figures, diagrams, or other visual materials are central to the explanation of a scientific, clinical, technical, or educational topic.

The images should serve a clear scholarly purpose and be accompanied by concise explanatory text, informative captions, and sufficient contextual information for readers to interpret the material. Depending on the subject, the manuscript may explain a series of observations, illustrate a technical process, present a structured visual review, or demonstrate a relevant clinical or scientific pattern.

Visual materials must be of sufficient quality for publication and must accurately represent the underlying observations. Image enhancement, cropping, annotation, and other modifications must not mislead readers or alter the scientific meaning of the material. Material alterations must be disclosed where required by the applicable standards.

Authors must have the necessary rights or permissions to publish third-party images and other copyrighted material. Images and descriptions involving identifiable individuals, patients, participants, or other sensitive subjects must comply with applicable consent, privacy, and ethical requirements.

A Pictorial Essay must offer meaningful scientific or educational value; a collection of images without adequate explanation, context, or analytical purpose is generally insufficient.

Art and Book Reviews

Art and Book Reviews provide critical evaluations of books, scholarly publications, exhibitions, artistic developments, or other cultural works where these subjects fall within the scope of the relevant ETFLIN journal.

A review should identify the work being evaluated and provide the necessary bibliographic or descriptive information. For an exhibition or comparable event, relevant information may include its title, organizer or venue, location, dates, and other identifying details, where applicable.

The review should offer a reasoned assessment of the work's purpose, content, quality, contribution, relevance, and limitations. It should be analytical rather than merely promotional or descriptive. Reviews of scholarly books should consider the work's argument, evidence, organization, originality, and significance within its field.

Authors must disclose relevant personal, professional, financial, or institutional relationships with the creators, publishers, organizers, or other parties associated with the work under review.

This publication type is available only to journals whose scope and editorial arrangements support it. Exhibition catalogues or other standalone cultural publications should not be assumed to be accepted as a separate publication type unless the relevant journal explicitly provides for them.

Conference Proceedings

Conference Proceedings publish scholarly contributions associated with an academic conference, symposium, workshop, or comparable scholarly event. Depending on the journal's arrangements, the published content may consist of full conference papers, selected abstracts, or a collection of eligible contributions.

The journal or conference organizers must clearly identify the event, its scope, and the nature of the material being published. The publication record should distinguish full papers from abstracts or summaries so that readers understand the extent of the research being reported.

The selection and review process must be described transparently. If contributions undergo external peer review, editorial review, or another evaluation procedure, the applicable process and any relevant exceptions must be clearly identified. The requirements for a conference publication must be appropriate to the content and claims being reported.

Full papers should provide sufficient methods, results, references, and supporting information for their intended purpose. An abstract-only contribution must not be presented as though it were a complete research article. Conference abstracts and papers must also contain accurate information about the status of the work and must not claim findings that are not adequately supported by the material reported.

Authors must disclose relevant prior presentation, publication, or dissemination of the work. A presentation at a conference does not automatically prevent later journal publication, but previously published full papers or substantially overlapping material must be disclosed and assessed in accordance with the journal's originality and publication ethics requirements.

Conference publications must comply with the applicable standards for research integrity, ethical oversight, authorship, competing interests, and copyright. These requirements apply to conference proceedings and special collections just as they do to other published content.

Post-Publication Discussion and Scholarly Correspondence

Where offered by the relevant journal, Post-Publication Discussion or scholarly correspondence provides a formal means of commenting on, questioning, or critically evaluating an article that has already been published.

Submissions may address a methodological issue, statistical interpretation, limitation, conflicting evidence, clarification, or another substantive scholarly matter relating to the original publication. The discussion should identify the article under consideration and present its arguments clearly, accurately, and with appropriate supporting evidence.

The purpose of this category is to promote constructive scientific exchange. Disagreement with an article is acceptable when expressed through reasoned scholarly argument, but personal attacks, unsupported allegations, harassment, and defamatory statements are not appropriate.

Where a submission raises substantive criticism of a published article, the original authors should ordinarily be given an opportunity to respond. The editor determines whether the discussion and response should be published together, separately, revised, or declined according to the scientific merits and applicable editorial procedures.

If a discussion identifies a possible material error or a concern about research integrity, the editor may refer the matter to the appropriate correction, retraction, or investigation procedure. A discussion does not automatically alter the status or content of the original article.

The availability and submission requirements for this category depend on the relevant journal's publication arrangements. The journal may use a dedicated correspondence format or another formal publication category for such contributions.

Reporting Standards and Ethical Requirements

Publication type requirements must be considered alongside the design of the study and the nature of the evidence reported. Authors should identify and follow the appropriate reporting guidance where one exists and is relevant to their work.

Examples include CONSORT for randomized trials, STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, PRISMA-ScR for scoping reviews, CARE for case reports, and ARRIVE for relevant studies involving animals. Qualitative studies may require guidance such as SRQR or COREQ, depending on the design and subject matter.

These examples are not exhaustive. Authors may consult the EQUATOR Network's reporting guideline library to identify guidance relevant to their study design.

Reporting guidelines support completeness and transparency; they do not replace appropriate study design, ethical approval, informed consent, trial registration, accurate data reporting, or other applicable research requirements.

All publication types remain subject to relevant rules on originality, authorship, competing interests, research ethics, data integrity, copyright, and the disclosure of the use of artificial intelligence where applicable. A change in publication type does not remove these obligations.

Editorial Assessment and Selection of Publication Type

All submitted manuscripts are subject to an initial editorial assessment for scope, suitability, completeness, originality, and compliance with the journal's applicable submission requirements.

The journal determines the appropriate level of editorial assessment and peer review according to its published procedures and the nature of the selected publication type. Original research and evidence syntheses generally require scientific assessment appropriate to their methodologies, while editorials, correspondence, and other specialized formats may follow different procedures.

Any exception to a journal's usual peer-review process must be consistent with its stated policies and communicated transparently where applicable. A manuscript must not be assumed to have undergone external peer review solely because it has been published.

The editor may request clarification, structural changes, additional information, or a change of category when necessary. A submission may be returned for revision, declined, or recommended for transfer to another publication format or journal where appropriate.

The final decision rests with the responsible editor and is based on the manuscript's quality, relevance, originality, evidence, ethical compliance, and conformity with the journal's scope. The publication type selected by the author does not guarantee acceptance, expedited handling, or publication within a specified period.

Availability Across ETFLIN Journals

The publication types described in this policy represent the general categories available within ETFLIN's publishing framework. They do not imply that every journal accepts every category.

Each journal may offer a subset of these types or define additional categories when justified by its scope, readership, and editorial objectives. The journal's official website and submission system provide the applicable requirements for each submission.

Authors should consult the relevant journal's instructions before preparing a manuscript. Where a manuscript could reasonably fit more than one category, the author should choose the category that most accurately reflects the principal contribution and follow the journal's specific guidance.

Manuscript types not listed as available by a journal, including additional formats such as protocols or other specialized contributions, must not be assumed to be accepted unless the journal explicitly permits them.

Policy Review

ETFLIN will periodically review this policy to maintain consistency between the publication types described on its website and the manuscript categories available through its journals' submission systems.

Any material changes to the categories accepted by an individual journal should be reflected in the journal's official information. The availability, review requirements, and formatting rules for each publication type must be communicated clearly to authors before submission.

Questions concerning the suitability of a manuscript category may be directed to the editorial office of the relevant journal.