1. Principles of Use
POLYMAS offers a range of article types based on the primary content and scholarly contribution of a manuscript. These categories help authors select an appropriate submission format and enable readers to understand the nature of the article.
Article types may differ in purpose, scope, structure, length, and required materials. Before submission, authors should review the relevant description and select the article type that most accurately reflects the manuscript’s content.
This page sets out the definition, scope, exclusions, recommended structure, indicative length, and materials that authors should provide for each POLYMAS article type.
Not all journals accept all article types. The article types offered by a particular journal and its specific submission requirements are set out in that journal’s Aims and Scope and Instructions for Authors.
2. General Submission Requirements
| Manuscript components | Title, main text, figures and captions, supplementary material, and any reporting checklist or article-type-specific file required. |
|---|---|
| Originality and author responsibility | All authors must approve the submission and take responsibility for their contributions. Simultaneous submission, plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, and inappropriate fragmentation of research are prohibited. Preprints, conference versions, related protocols, data articles, and closely related manuscripts must be disclosed in accordance with the journal's policies. |
| Author contributions, funding, and interests | Provide author-contribution, funding, and competing-interest statements; explicitly state where none apply. |
| Ethics, consent, and privacy | For work involving human participants, animals, cases, images, personal information, or sensitive data, provide applicable ethics approval or a basis for exemption, consent to participate or consent for publication, and appropriate privacy protections. |
| Data, code, and materials | Provide a data availability statement and, where applicable and feasible, data, code, software, materials, version information, persistent identifiers, and access instructions. |
| Use of AI tools | AI tools must not be listed as authors. Authors remain responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the manuscript's content, references, data, and images, and must disclose substantive use of AI assistance in accordance with the journal's policies. |
3. Article Types
01
Research Article
| Type description | A complete report of original experimental, observational, theoretical, computational, qualitative, or mixed-methods research with a clearly stated contribution. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Manuscripts that report original research findings and present a clearly defined research question, rigorous and sufficiently detailed methods, sufficient supporting evidence, and well-founded conclusions. |
| Not suitable for | Manuscripts that merely summarize existing literature, present a viewpoint without complete research evidence, or use a design or methods insufficient to support their conclusions. |
| Suggested structure | Abstract; Introduction; Methods; Results; Discussion; optional Conclusion; Declarations. Theoretical and humanities research may use a clear argumentative structure. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 3,500–8,000 words; 200–300-word abstract; 4–8 figures and tables. |
| What authors should provide | State the research question, materials or sample, analytical methods, limitations, and arrangements for access to data and code. Negative or hypothesis-disconfirming results must be reported completely. |
02
Short Communication
| Type description | A concise but complete report of original research with a clearly defined scope and focused research question. A Short Communication must contain a research question, methods, results, and conclusions that can be evaluated independently. It must not be an abridged Research Article, and necessary research content must not be omitted merely to meet a shorter word limit. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Focused original studies with a narrow scope and concentrated findings, where the design, key methods, and chain of evidence are complete. |
| Not suitable for | Manuscripts reporting only preliminary observations, omitting key methods or data, or unable to support an independent conclusion; this type is also not used to respond to a published article. |
| Suggested structure | Abstract; Introduction; Methods; Results; Discussion; Declarations. Sections may be combined where appropriate, but information necessary to understand and evaluate the research must not be omitted. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 1,500–3,000 words; 150–200-word abstract; 2–4 figures and tables. |
| What authors should provide | Provide complete methods, key data, effect sizes or principal results, study limitations, and applicable data or code availability information sufficient to assess the conclusions. |
03
Brief Report
| Type description | A highly concise report of a small-scale research finding, preliminary validation, or limited-sample study with independent scholarly value. Its purpose is to present a clearly bounded research question, rather than to provide a full account of a complex research project. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Manuscripts with a single, well-defined question, relatively simple methods, and limited principal findings that can be fully substantiated in a short format. |
| Not suitable for | Manuscripts that require multiple experiments, multiple primary outcomes, complex methods, or extensive analysis and discussion to support their conclusions. Authors must not use this format to omit information essential to a complete account of the work. |
| Suggested structure | Brief abstract; Background or Introduction; Methods; Results; Discussion; Declarations. Continuous prose or concise subheadings may be used. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 1,200–2,500 words; 100–200-word abstract; 1–3 figures and tables. |
| What authors should provide | Provide the core methods, sample or materials, principal results, key limitations, and applicable data or code availability information. Evidence essential to the conclusions must not be placed only in supplementary material. |
04
Research Letter
| Type description | A very concise report of one clearly defined original finding; it is not a letter commenting on a published article. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Concise manuscripts that address a focused research question and report original, timely, and well-supported findings, with the methods, principal results, and scholarly significance presented clearly within a limited length. |
| Not suitable for | Letters responding to a published article, or studies that require a full account of complex methods, multiple primary outcomes, or extensive evidence. |
| Suggested structure | Brief background; Methods; Results; Discussion; Declarations; Headings optional. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 800–1,500 words; normally no abstract, or an abstract of up to 150 words where permitted; 1–2 figures and tables. |
| What authors should provide | Retain the essential sample information, effect sizes or other evidentiary basis for the findings, and the principal limitations. Supplementary material must not substitute for core evidence. |
05
Review
| Type description | A synthesis, interpretation, and critical appraisal of existing research on a defined field, topic, or question, covering major theories and research developments, important debates, evidence gaps, and future directions. Its central scholarly contribution lies in the informed synthesis and interpretation of existing knowledge rather than the reporting of new original research findings. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Manuscripts that synthesize and critically appraise existing literature, theoretical perspectives, and research developments on a defined field, topic, or question in order to summarise the current state of knowledge, distinguish major positions and debates, identify research gaps, and propose future research directions. |
| Not suitable for | Manuscripts that primarily report original research, or reviews conducted using standardized systematic methods, such as systematic reviews or scoping reviews. Manuscripts that primarily present an author’s viewpoint or scholarly position should be submitted under the appropriate viewpoint article type. |
| Suggested structure | Abstract; Introduction stating the purpose and scope of the review; thematically organised main sections; major debates, research limitations, or knowledge gaps; Conclusion and future directions; relevant Declarations. The specific sections may be adapted to the review topic and disciplinary conventions; an IMRaD structure is not required. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 5,000–7,000 words; 200–300-word abstract; 4–8 figures and tables. |
| What authors should provide | Describe the scope of the review and the methods used to identify and select literature, explain the principles governing topic and source selection, and present key positions and contrary evidence fairly. The review must not merely list publications or disproportionately emphasize the authors' own work. |
06
Mini Review
| Type description | A concise, critical synthesis and appraisal of key research developments, major positions, important debates, and knowledge gaps within a clearly defined and relatively focused topic. A Mini Review emphasises focus and brevity while retaining the necessary scholarly depth, representative coverage of the literature, and balance of argument. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Focused topics, specific questions, or recent developments that can support a substantive synthesis, appraisal, and outlook within a limited length. |
| Not suitable for | Broad reviews requiring comprehensive coverage of a field, or evidence syntheses conducted using standardized systematic methods. A full review must not be reduced to a mini review by omitting key literature, evidence, or differing perspectives. |
| Suggested structure | Abstract; Introduction; thematically organised main sections; Discussion, Conclusion, or future directions. The structure may be adapted to the topic and disciplinary conventions. |
| Suggested length and abstract | Normally 2,000–3,500 words; approximately 150–200 words for the abstract; figures and tables as required by the content and generally kept to a minimum. Individual journals may adjust these limits according to disciplinary conventions. |
| What authors should provide | Define the review topic, scope, and principles for selecting literature; prioritize representative primary studies and present important positions and contrary evidence fairly. Brevity must not compromise essential evidence, scholarly balance, or completeness of argument. |
07
Systematic Review
| Type description | A review that uses prespecified, transparent, and reproducible systematic methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise relevant evidence addressing a clearly defined research question, with the aim of comprehensively summarising the available evidence and reaching reliable conclusions. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Manuscripts that use systematic, transparent, and reproducible searching, screening, data extraction, appraisal, and synthesis methods to address a clearly defined research question. |
| Not suitable for | Narrative or thematic reviews that do not use prespecified, reproducible methods for evidence identification, screening, and synthesis. Manuscripts primarily mapping the breadth of evidence, concepts, study distribution, or knowledge gaps should use a scoping review or another suitable evidence-synthesis type. |
| Suggested structure | Structured abstract; Introduction; Methods; Results; Discussion; optional Conclusion; registration and protocol information; Declarations. Reporting must follow PRISMA 2020 and applicable extensions. |
| Suggested length and abstract | Normally 5,000–8,000 words; approximately 250–350 words for the structured abstract; figures and tables as required by the evidence synthesis, including an applicable study-selection flow diagram. Individual journals may adjust these limits according to disciplinary conventions. |
| What authors should provide | Report all information sources and search dates, search strategies, eligibility criteria, study-selection and data-extraction methods, risk-of-bias assessment, and synthesis methods. Submit the PRISMA 2020 checklist and an applicable study-selection flow diagram, and provide protocol or registration details, identifiers, and accessible links where available. |
08
Meta-analysis
| Type description | A quantitative synthesis that uses appropriate statistical methods to combine sufficiently comparable results from studies identified, selected, and appraised through a systematic evidence-review process, in order to obtain pooled effect estimates and assess between-study differences and uncertainty. A Meta-analysis is normally conducted as part of a Systematic Review and must not be presented as an isolated statistical analysis without systematic evidence searching and transparent study selection. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Manuscripts that quantitatively synthesise reasonably comparable study results identified through systematic evidence searching and screening in order to estimate an overall effect, assess between-study heterogeneity, or explore differences in effects. |
| Not suitable for | Isolated statistical analyses without systematic evidence identification and transparent study selection, or forced pooling of clearly heterogeneous or incomparable studies without sound clinical, methodological, or statistical justification. |
| Suggested structure | The structure should generally follow that of a Systematic Review, including a Structured Abstract; Introduction; Methods; Results; Discussion; and relevant Declarations. The Methods and Results should fully report effect measures, statistical models, heterogeneity assessment, sensitivity or subgroup analyses where applicable, and other quantitative synthesis methods and results. Reporting must follow PRISMA 2020 and applicable extensions. |
| Suggested length and abstract | Normally 4,500–6,000 words; normally 200–300 words for the structured abstract; figures and tables as required by the study and evidence synthesis. Individual journals may adjust these limits according to disciplinary conventions. |
| What authors should provide | In addition to the information and materials required for a Systematic Review, report the effect measures and their calculation, the statistical synthesis methods and rationale for model selection, the assessment and management of heterogeneity, and the statistical software, packages, and versions used. Where applicable, report the methods and results of subgroup analyses, meta-regression, sensitivity analyses, and assessment of reporting bias. Authors are encouraged to provide the extracted data and analysis code needed to reproduce the results, subject to the journal's data and code policies. |
09
Scoping Review
| Type description | A review that uses systematic and transparent methods to identify and map evidence on a broad research question or topic, describing the breadth of evidence, key concepts, study types and characteristics, knowledge gaps, and future research directions. Its primary purpose is generally not to estimate the effect of a specific intervention precisely or to reach a focused conclusion about effectiveness. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Systematic mapping of evidence breadth and distribution on a broad topic; clarification of key concepts or definitions; characterization of study types; identification of knowledge gaps; or assessment of whether a systematic review is warranted and feasible. |
| Not suitable for | Evidence syntheses whose primary aim is to answer a highly focused research question, assess intervention effects, or estimate a precise effect. Ordinary literature reviews that merely list studies without a clear question, systematic searching, transparent screening, and data-charting methods are also unsuitable. |
| Suggested structure | Structured abstract; Introduction; Methods; Results; Discussion; optional Conclusion; registration and protocol information; Declarations. Reporting must follow PRISMA-ScR. |
| Suggested length and abstract | Normally 4,000–6,000 words; normally 200–250 words for the structured abstract; figures and tables as required for evidence mapping and presentation of results. Individual journals may adjust these limits according to disciplinary conventions. |
| What authors should provide | Define the review objectives, questions, and eligibility criteria, including the framework used where applicable; report information sources, search strategies, source-selection procedures, data charting, and synthesis methods. Submit the PRISMA-ScR checklist and an applicable flow diagram, and describe any critical appraisal undertaken. |
10
Umbrella Review
| Type description | A systematic identification, appraisal, and synthesis of existing Systematic Reviews, Meta-analyses, or other eligible evidence syntheses addressing a defined question or topic. It provides a higher-level overview of the evidence and assesses consistency, differences, and overlap across reviews. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Topics for which multiple systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or other eligible syntheses already exist and require a higher-level synthesis of scope, methodological quality, key findings, and consistency of evidence. |
| Not suitable for | Systematic reviews that primarily synthesize original studies, or ordinary reviews that list existing reviews without systematic searching, transparent screening, methodological quality appraisal, and structured evidence synthesis. |
| Suggested structure | Structured abstract; Introduction; Review question; Eligibility; Methods; Results; Synthesis; Discussion; Conclusion; Declarations. |
| Suggested length and abstract | Normally 4,000–6,000 words; normally 200–300 words for the structured abstract; figures and tables as required for evidence synthesis and presentation of results. Individual journals may adjust these limits according to disciplinary conventions. |
| What authors should provide | Define the review question and eligibility criteria and report information sources, search strategies, review selection, methodological-quality assessment, data extraction, and synthesis methods. Where applicable, explain how overlap among reviews was identified and managed, and submit the relevant reporting checklist and flow diagram. |
11
Rapid Review
| Type description | A time-sensitive evidence synthesis that retains systematic, transparent, and interpretable principles while using prespecified and reasonably justified streamlining or acceleration of selected Systematic Review methods to meet an urgent evidence need. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Questions with clear time sensitivity or urgent decision-making needs, where the use of rapid evidence-synthesis methods can be justified. |
| Not suitable for | Manuscripts that reduce databases, narrow searches, simplify screening, or omit key quality-control steps merely because of limited time. Any streamlining must be justified and its potential effect reported transparently. |
| Suggested structure | Structured abstract; Introduction; Methods; Results; Discussion; Conclusion; Declarations. Identify and justify every streamlined or accelerated method and discuss the resulting limitations. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 4,000–6,000 words; 200–300-word structured abstract; figures and tables as required. |
| What authors should provide | In addition to the usual requirements for the relevant evidence-synthesis type, identify and justify every streamlined or accelerated method and explain its possible effects on evidence completeness, risk of bias, and reliability. Report the methods actually used for searching, screening, data extraction, quality assessment, and synthesis. |
12
Methods Article
| Type description | An article whose primary scholarly contribution is a new method or a substantial improvement to an existing method, with emphasis on its underlying principles, implementation, validation, reproducibility, scope of application, and limitations. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Studies presenting a new method or a substantial improvement with clear incremental value, and validating its performance and scope through benchmarks, comparators, simulations, experiments, or other appropriate approaches. |
| Not suitable for | Manuscripts that merely apply an established method to a new dataset, describe a routine workflow, lack performance validation, or make changes insufficient to constitute an independent methodological contribution. |
| Suggested structure | Abstract; Introduction; Method principles and implementation; Validation; Results; Scope and limitations; Conclusion; Declarations. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 2,500–5,000 words; 200–250-word abstract; figures and tables as required. |
| What authors should provide | Provide sufficient technical detail, parameters, benchmarks or comparators, errors, and failure conditions to permit reproduction. Where applicable, provide code, algorithmic workflows, sample data, and information on the software environment and versions. |
13
Technical Note
| Type description | A concise report of a practical and verifiable technical improvement, instrument modification, measurement method, engineering implementation, or operational optimisation. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Clearly bounded and relatively concise technical contributions that explain a specific problem, solution, validation results, and limitations. |
| Not suitable for | Internal progress reports, vendor product promotion, unvalidated technical descriptions, or original research requiring a full study design to support its main conclusions. |
| Suggested structure | Abstract; Technical problem; Implementation; Validation or application; Limitations; Optional Conclusion. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 1,500–3,500 words; 150–200-word abstract; typically 2–4 figures and tables. |
| What authors should provide | Provide key parameters, materials or equipment information, and validation data. Where necessary, include design files, operating instructions, code, or other materials that support verification. |
14
Technical Report
| Type description | A systematic account of a technical development, test, engineering implementation, system deployment, or technical evaluation undertaken for a clearly defined purpose, with emphasis on the technical background, implementation process, performance evidence, and practical limitations. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Technical work that exceeds the scale or complexity of a Technical Note and requires a fuller account of system architecture, implementation, testing, performance evaluation, or deployment experience. |
| Not suitable for | Internal work reports, project-progress summaries, product white papers, or manuscripts lacking independent evidence for technical evaluation. Manuscripts whose principal contribution is an original scientific finding should use a research-article type. |
| Suggested structure | Abstract; Background and objective; System or technical design; Implementation and testing; Performance evaluation; Limitations and lessons; Conclusion. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 3,000–6,000 words; 150–250-word abstract; figures and tables according to technical complexity. |
| What authors should provide | State the system or technical version, key configuration, test environment, evaluation metrics, and validation data. Where applicable, provide design documentation, code, technical appendices, or access information. |
15
Data Article
| Type description | An article whose principal research output is a dataset with independent scholarly and reuse value, with emphasis on how the data were acquired, organised, validated, stored, and made available for use. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Manuscripts describing a dataset with independent scholarly and reuse value, including its acquisition, processing, quality control, storage, and reuse. |
| Not suitable for | Manuscripts primarily reporting research findings, testing a hypothesis, or proposing a theoretical explanation without providing a dataset of independent reuse value and a complete data description. |
| Suggested structure | Abstract; Background and research purpose; Data acquisition and processing methods; Dataset description; Quality control and validation; Data access and use; Data Availability Statement. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 2,000–5,000 words; 150–250-word abstract; 2–5 figures and tables. |
| What authors should provide | State the repository location and persistent identifier, such as a DOI, dataset version, data dictionary or variable descriptions, file formats, licence, and quality-control methods. Where data cannot be made fully public, explain the access restrictions and application procedure, and ensure that editors and reviewers can inspect the relevant data during peer review in accordance with the journal's requirements. |
16
Software Article
| Type description | An article whose principal output is software or a computational tool with independent research and reuse value, with emphasis on its design and implementation, main functions, technical validation, applications, and availability. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Software, open-source tools, algorithm libraries, computational frameworks, modelling or simulation tools, and other reusable computational resources with independent scholarly value and reuse potential. |
| Not suitable for | Product descriptions, websites, online demonstrations, or manuscripts describing software without a stable version, clear licence, essential user documentation, and verifiable functionality. |
| Suggested structure | Abstract; Background and research need; Design and implementation; Main functions; Application examples and validation; Performance and limitations; Software access and instructions for use. The specific sections may be adapted to the nature of the software and disciplinary conventions. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 2,500–6,000 words; a 150–250-word abstract; figures and tables as required for describing the software, technical validation, and applications. |
| What authors should provide | Provide a stable version and version number of the software, access to the software or source code, the applicable licence, runtime environment and dependencies, installation and usage instructions, and examples or tests that demonstrate its main functions. Depending on the nature of the software, also provide the key technical information required for validation and reuse, such as parameter settings, computing-resource requirements, and modelling or simulation conditions. |
17
Experimental Protocol
| Type description | An article providing clear, actionable steps that enable other researchers to reproduce or apply a method accurately. It is distinct from a Study Protocol, which primarily describes the design and implementation plan for a proposed study. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Validated step-by-step procedures, or procedures supported by clear validation evidence. |
| Not suitable for | Manuscripts that primarily describe an uncompleted study plan, which should be submitted as a Study Protocol; manuscripts that provide only a process description without clear operational steps, quality-control measures, or validation evidence are also unsuitable. |
| Suggested structure | Abstract; Applications and limitations; Materials and equipment; Procedure and timing; Troubleshooting; Expected results. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 3,000–7,000 words; a 150–250-word abstract; figures and tables as required by the procedure. |
| What authors should provide | Identify critical steps, safety risks, pause points, quality-control measures, and validation examples. Expected results must not be presented as results that have already been obtained. |
18
Study Protocol
| Type description | Publication of a Study Protocol does not imply or guarantee that subsequent research conducted on the basis of the protocol will be accepted or published by the journal. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Manuscripts that make a research plan, methods, and analysis plan publicly available before the study is completed, thereby enhancing research transparency. |
| Not suitable for | Manuscripts submitted after the main data collection or analysis has been completed, or manuscripts that retrospectively describe the research process; such manuscripts should be submitted as Research Articles. |
| Suggested structure | Structured Abstract; Background; Objectives; Study Design and Methods; Analysis Plan; Ethics; Study Status. Reporting should follow the SPIRIT guideline or the PRISMA-P reporting guideline, as applicable. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 3,000–6,000 words; a 250–350-word abstract; 2–5 figures and tables. |
| What authors should provide | Clearly state the protocol version, current study status, registration information, basis for the sample-size determination, and ethics approval status. Protocols for randomized controlled trials should follow the CONSORT reporting guidelines. |
19
Registered Report
| Type description | Unlike ordinary study registration, a Registered Report is defined by in-principle acceptance at Stage 1 and verification at Stage 2 that the study was conducted in accordance with the approved protocol. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Studies in which the research question, design, and analysis plan are reviewed before results are known. |
| Not suitable for | Manuscripts without Stage 1 in-principle acceptance, or manuscripts for which the primary results were already known when the research plan was submitted. Such work must not be treated as a Stage 2 Registered Report. |
| Suggested structure | Stage 1 should include the Introduction, Methods, and prespecified analysis plan. Following in-principle acceptance at Stage 1, Stage 2 should add the Results, Discussion, and an explanation of any deviations from the originally approved protocol. |
| Suggested length and abstract | Stage 1: normally 3,000–6,000 words. Stage 2 follows the length requirements for a Research Article. A 200–300-word abstract is recommended. |
| What authors should provide | At Stage 1, provide a submission timestamp and the basis for determining the sample size, statistical power, or precision of estimation. At Stage 2, provide the approved protocol, relevant data and analysis code, and a comparison identifying any deviations between the study as conducted and the originally approved protocol. |
20
Replication Study
| Type description | Original research whose primary purpose is to test whether an existing finding, effect, or method can be reproduced under the same or reasonably varied conditions. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Direct replications, conceptual replications, and other prespecified replication studies that can transparently compare their design, sample, methods, and results with the original study. |
| Not suitable for | Conventional original research described as a replication solely because it addresses a similar topic, or for manuscripts that fail to explain key differences from the original study or lack the sample size or precision required for a meaningful replication. |
| Suggested structure | Abstract; Introduction and background to the original study; Replication objective; Methods; Results; Comparison with the original study; Discussion; Conclusion; Declarations. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 3,500–7,000 words; a 200–300-word abstract; figures and tables as required for comparison and validation. |
| What authors should provide | Identify the original study and the key claim to be replicated; explain similarities to and differences from the original study, the basis for sample size or precision, the analysis plan, the complete results, and arrangements for access to data and code. |
21
Negative Results
| Type description | A complete report of a methodologically sound study in which the expected effect was not observed, the research hypothesis was not supported, or the result was contrary to expectations. The direction of the results is not in itself a reason for rejection. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Well-designed and adequately analysed original studies with negative, null, non-significant, hypothesis-disconfirming, or directionally opposite primary findings. |
| Not suitable for | Non-significant findings that are uninterpretable because of clear underpowering, methodological flaws, implementation failure, or data-quality problems; manuscripts that selectively report only negative results while omitting other key findings are also unsuitable. |
| Suggested structure | The design and structure should generally follow those of the corresponding Research Article and normally include an Abstract; Introduction; Methods; Results; Discussion; optional Conclusion; and relevant Declarations. |
| Suggested length and abstract | Normally follows the length requirements for a Research Article; 3,500–8,000 words and a 200–300-word abstract are recommended. |
| What authors should provide | Report all prespecified and non-prespecified results, effect sizes and uncertainty, the basis for sample size or precision, study limitations, and data and code availability. Selective reporting is not permitted. |
22
Case Report
| Type description | A complete account of the clinical presentation, diagnosis, treatment, outcome, and instructive clinical information relating to a single patient or a very small number of cases with clear clinical educational value. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Rare or educationally valuable clinical presentations, diagnostic challenges, treatment responses, adverse events, or other individual cases with clear clinical learning value. |
| Not suitable for | Routine cases without clear clinical or educational value, or manuscripts that primarily describe or compare multiple cases; these should be considered as Case Series or another appropriate research type. |
| Suggested structure | Abstract, as required by the journal; Introduction; Patient information or clinical presentation; Diagnostic assessment; Treatment or intervention; Follow-up and outcomes; Discussion; Patient perspective where applicable; informed consent and relevant Declarations. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 1,500–3,000 words; a 100–200-word abstract or as specified by the journal; figures and tables as required to present the case. |
| What authors should provide | Provide written informed consent for publication and state whether ethics approval or an ethics waiver was obtained, where applicable. Submit the CARE reporting checklist where applicable. All patient-related information must be adequately de-identified, and permission must be obtained for the use or publication of any third-party material. |
23
Case Series
| Type description | An organised description and analysis of a group of patient cases sharing clinical characteristics, exposures, diagnoses, treatments, or outcomes, intended to summarise clinical patterns, experience, or signals. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | A consecutive or clearly selected group of cases used to describe disease presentations, clinical experience, treatment outcomes, adverse events, or other clinical patterns. |
| Not suitable for | Single-case reports, or studies with a defined comparison group, an inferential research design, or reporting requirements equivalent to a full observational study. |
| Suggested structure | Abstract; Introduction; Case inclusion criteria and sources; Case characteristics; Clinical management and outcomes; Discussion; Limitations; Ethics and relevant Declarations. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 2,500–4,500 words; a 150–250-word abstract; figures and tables as required by the number of cases and presentation of results. |
| What authors should provide | Describe the case-selection method, time frame, and data sources. Provide written informed consent for publication and state whether ethics approval or an ethics waiver was obtained, where applicable. Submit the CARE reporting checklist where applicable. All patient-related information must be adequately de-identified, and permission must be obtained for the use or publication of any third-party material. |
24
Clinical Image
| Type description | An article centred on one or more high-quality clinical images of clear clinical, diagnostic, or medical educational value, accompanied by concise case context and image explanation to present a representative, instructive, or educational clinical finding. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Medical photographs, radiological images, pathology images, endoscopic images, and other material that clearly demonstrates important clinical signs, diagnostic features, or disease manifestations. |
| Not suitable for | Manuscripts whose primary purpose is a complete account of patient history, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up, which should use the Case Report type; images that are visually striking but lack clear clinical significance or educational value are also unsuitable. |
| Suggested structure | Clinical presentation; Examination or imaging findings; Diagnosis and management; Outcome or follow-up where applicable; Brief discussion or learning points. A complete IMRaD structure is normally not required. |
| Suggested length and abstract | Usually 500–1,000 words; normally no abstract; images are central. |
| What authors should provide | Submit the original image files and provide a title, legend, acquisition method, and necessary technical parameters for each image. Disclose any cropping, enhancement, stitching, or other processing. Uncropped or unadjusted original images must be provided at the editorial office's request. Where identifiable patient information is involved, provide written informed consent for publication. Also provide, as applicable, statements concerning ethics approval, author contributions, funding, competing interests, data availability, and copyright permission. |
25
Video Article
| Type description | An article that uses video as its principal scholarly medium, accompanied by the text needed to present a clinical procedure, surgical technique, experimental process, diagnostic phenomenon, or other research or educational content requiring dynamic presentation. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Manuscripts for which video is necessary to understand procedural steps, dynamic phenomena, technical details, or results that cannot be adequately conveyed through static text and images. |
| Not suitable for | Videos used only for promotion, demonstration, or decorative supplementation. If the video is not the principal scholarly content, it should be submitted as supplementary material to a conventional article. |
| Suggested structure | Use a structure appropriate to the content. Surgical or procedural content: Introduction; Patient selection and preoperative preparation; Procedural steps; Postoperative or post-procedural management and outcomes; Key procedural points, techniques, and precautions; Discussion; Conclusion. Research or experimental content: Introduction; Methods; Results; Discussion; Conclusion. Clinical or diagnostic content: Clinical presentation; Examination and imaging findings; Diagnosis and management; Outcome or follow-up; Discussion; Learning points. |
| Suggested length and abstract | Normally 1,000–3,000 words; a 150–250-word abstract. Videos should normally be no longer than 10 minutes, unless a longer duration is approved by the editor. |
| What authors should provide | Submit the original video file and provide a title and description for each video, a narration script or transcript where applicable, a representative still image or thumbnail, and the video-acquisition method, equipment or imaging method, and necessary technical parameters. Disclose any editing, acceleration, slow motion, enhancement, cropping, stitching, or other processing; unadjusted original files must be provided at the editorial office's request. Also provide, as applicable, statements concerning ethics approval, informed consent for publication, author contributions, funding, competing interests, data availability, and third-party copyright permissions. |
26
Case Study
| Type description | An in-depth, contextualised analysis of one or a small number of clearly bounded cases, intended to explain a complex phenomenon, mechanism, process, or practical experience. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Research in organizations, policy, society, education, management, technology adoption, or other contexts where a bounded case is needed to understand processes, mechanisms, and contextual relationships. |
| Not suitable for | Manuscripts that merely introduce a case, promote experience, or lack a clear research question, data sources, and analytical methods; medical case reports are also unsuitable. |
| Suggested structure | Abstract; Question and background; Case selection and context; Sources and methods; Findings/analysis; Discussion; Conclusion and limitations. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 4,000–7,000 words; 200–300-word abstract; figures and tables as required. |
| What authors should provide | Explain the basis for case selection, data sources, methods of data collection and analysis, the researcher's role, and the study's limitations. Where sensitive organisational or personal information is involved, describe the arrangements for ethics, consent, and anonymisation. |
27
Community Case Study
| Type description | A systematic account of a community-level intervention, governance practice, co-creation process, or social action. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Community governance, public health, education, social innovation, environmental governance, participatory research, and other practice research centred on community context and multi-stakeholder participation. |
| Not suitable for | Promotional accounts of community activities or project outcomes without a clear question, systematic evidence, and analysis. If the principal unit of analysis is not community-level practice, authors should use Case Study or another suitable article type. |
| Suggested structure | Abstract; Community and problem context; Research or practice objectives; Participants and methods; Implementation process; Outcomes or lessons; Reflection and limitations; Transferability or implications; Conclusion. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 4,000–7,000 words; 200–300-word abstract; figures and tables as required. |
| What authors should provide | Describe the community context, participants and governance arrangements, engagement or co-creation process, evidence sources and analytical methods, implementation and outcomes, community consent or authorization where applicable, ethical safeguards, limitations, and lessons for transferability. |
28
Hypothesis
| Type description | An evidence-grounded article proposing a clear, testable, and potentially explanatory hypothesis and a route to falsification. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Manuscripts supported by sufficient existing evidence to formulate a novel, testable hypothesis with clear research predictions, but without completed direct empirical testing. |
| Not suitable for | Speculative manuscripts lacking adequate evidence or theoretical grounding, articles primarily expressing subjective views, or manuscripts that already contain complete empirical testing and should be submitted as research articles. |
| Suggested structure | Abstract; Background; Evidence base; Hypothesis; Mechanism and testable predictions; Alternatives or falsification; Validation pathway; Conclusion. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 2,500–5,000 words; 150–250-word abstract; figures and tables as required. |
| What authors should provide | State the hypothesis precisely, distinguish it from established findings, explain the supporting evidence and proposed mechanism, derive testable predictions, describe plausible alternatives and conditions for falsification, and outline a realistic validation pathway. |
29
Theory Article
| Type description | An article that develops, revises, integrates, or compares theoretical frameworks and derives coherent propositions or implications. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Manuscripts whose principal contribution is theoretical development, including new theories, extensions of existing theories, integration of theoretical traditions, or new explanatory frameworks. |
| Not suitable for | Reviews primarily intended to summarize and synthesize existing literature, or viewpoint articles that express an academic position without systematic theoretical construction. |
| Suggested structure | Abstract; Problem and theoretical background; Concepts; Framework or propositions; Comparison; Scope and boundaries; Testable implications; Conclusion. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 4,000–8,000 words; 200–300-word abstract; figures and tables as required. |
| What authors should provide | Define all key constructs and assumptions, explain the theoretical problem and contribution, develop propositions or mechanisms coherently, compare the framework with relevant alternatives, specify scope conditions and limitations, and identify testable implications. |
30
Conceptual Analysis
| Type description | A systematic analysis of the meaning, boundaries, relationships, or use of one or more core concepts. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Manuscripts in philosophy, the humanities, social sciences, or interdisciplinary fields that clarify definitions, distinguish related concepts, analyse conceptual evolution, or establish a conceptual framework. |
| Not suitable for | Manuscripts limited to terminology explanations, dictionary-style definitions, or simple lists of existing literature. Manuscripts whose principal contribution is systematic and complete theory building should use the Theory Article type. |
| Suggested structure | Abstract; Problem; Concepts and contexts; Analytical framework; Boundaries and relationships; Discussion; Implications; Conclusion. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 3,000–6,000 words; 150–250-word abstract; figures and tables as required. |
| What authors should provide | Define the concepts and contexts under analysis, explain the analytical approach, identify relevant sources and uses, distinguish related concepts and boundaries, address alternative interpretations, and state the implications for theory, research, or practice. |
31
Perspective
| Type description | An evidence-informed interpretation of an important issue, emerging field, or future research agenda from an expert scholarly perspective. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Manuscripts discussing disciplinary trends, major theoretical or methodological changes, emerging research directions, cross-disciplinary issues, or future research priorities. |
| Not suitable for | Manuscripts whose primary contribution is unpublished original data, or articles that merely state a personal position or preference without sufficient evidence or scholarly basis. Responses to, discussions of, or comments on a published article should use Commentary or Letter to the Editor. |
| Suggested structure | Optional abstract; Background; Central interpretation; Evidence and argument; Alternative views or limitations; Future agenda; Conclusion. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 1,500–3,500 words; no abstract is required, but any abstract should normally be no more than 200 words; usually no more than 3 figures and tables in total. |
| What authors should provide | Clearly distinguish facts, interpretations, and forward-looking judgements; cite appropriate sources for key claims; and disclose interests relevant to the topic discussed. |
32
Viewpoint
| Type description | A focused, evidence-based position or interpretation concerning a specific academic, professional, methodological, or policy issue. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Focused positions on current academic practice, methodological choices, professional standards, policy issues, or research debates, supported by relevant evidence and professional judgement. |
| Not suitable for | Reviews primarily intended to systematically synthesize a field's literature, or Perspectives primarily intended to set a long-term research agenda or broad future outlook. Manuscripts expressing personal opinion without adequate evidence or scholarly basis should use a more appropriate opinion type or may not be considered. |
| Suggested structure | Usually no abstract; Background; Position; Supporting evidence; Counterarguments or limitations; Conclusion or recommendations. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 1,200–2,500 words; an optional abstract of up to 150 words; usually no more than 2 figures and tables. |
| What authors should provide | State the central position and its principal basis clearly; distinguish facts from value judgements; and disclose relevant interests. |
33
Opinion
| Type description | A clearly argued position on an issue of scholarly or public importance, supported by relevant evidence and professional judgement. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Evidence-informed individual or collective opinions on academic policy, research culture, professional practice, social issues, or disciplinary debates. |
| Not suitable for | Casual commentary lacking adequate evidence or scholarly grounding, personal evaluations, or factual claims requiring research evidence that is not provided. Manuscripts primarily intended to set a scholarly outlook, future research direction, or research agenda should use Perspective. |
| Suggested structure | Usually no abstract; Issue/background; Position; Principal arguments; Possible objections or limitations; Closing remarks. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 800–2,000 words; normally no abstract; figures and tables kept to a minimum. |
| What authors should provide | Clearly identify the content as opinion, provide reliable sources for key factual statements, and disclose relevant interests. |
34
Commentary
| Type description | A focused analysis or scholarly response concerning published research, a current academic event, a methodological debate, or an important issue. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Focused assessment of a published study, current academic event, methodological controversy, or important issue, including its significance, methods, or implications. |
| Not suitable for | Content involving serious allegations of research-integrity concerns or requiring further investigation and verification. Such matters should be submitted directly to the editorial office, not as a Commentary. |
| Suggested structure | Usually no abstract; Issue; Analysis; Conclusion; Cite the discussed article and DOI when relevant. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 1,000–2,000 words; normally no abstract; no more than 2 figures and tables in total. |
| What authors should provide | Quote and represent the original research and supporting evidence accurately, avoid personal criticism, and refer concerns about reliability through the separate research-integrity process. |
35
Letter to the Editor
| Type description | A concise comment, question, clarification, or supplementary observation concerning content published by the journal or a tightly defined issue within scope. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Brief scholarly exchanges on a published article, methodological discussion, or a well-defined issue within the journal's scope. |
| Not suitable for | Short reports of independent original research findings, or commentaries and viewpoints requiring extensive systematic argument. |
| Suggested structure | Usually no abstract; Brief context; Principal comment or question; Conclusion; Citation and DOI of the discussed article where relevant. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 500–1,200 words; normally no abstract; generally no more than 1 figure or table. |
| What authors should provide | Cite the article or other material under discussion accurately, avoid personal criticism, and disclose relevant interests. Where a published article is discussed, identify its title, DOI, or other identifying information clearly. |
36
Reply
| Type description | A formal response by authors or an invited party to a published letter, commentary, or scholarly criticism. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Point-by-point clarification, explanation, or response to a specific published letter, commentary, or scholarly query, forming a linked publication record. |
| Not suitable for | Unsolicited general opinion pieces, or submissions that use a reply to introduce substantial original research results that have not undergone peer review. |
| Suggested structure | Usually no abstract; Identify the item addressed; Point-by-point response; Clarification or supplementary explanation; Conclusion. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 500–1,200 words; normally no abstract; figures and tables kept to a minimum. |
| What authors should provide | Clearly identify the Letter to the Editor, Commentary, or original article being answered and accurately describe the relationship. Support all factual claims with adequate evidence or appropriate references, and disclose any existing or new interests and potential conflicts relevant to the matter discussed. |
37
Editorial
| Type description | An Editorial does not replace peer-reviewed original research and must not be used for promotional content. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Editorial-team or invited-author articles explaining journal policy, providing thematic context, or addressing an important scholarly issue. |
| Not suitable for | Original research submitted by general authors, thematic promotion, or commercial promotion. Editorials are normally commissioned or initiated by the editorial office. |
| Suggested structure | Usually no abstract; Background; Position or explanation; Closing remarks. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 800–1,500 words; normally no abstract; no more than 1 figure or table. |
| What authors should provide | Disclose the authors' identities and interests. Where the Editorial concerns journal business or a thematic issue, describe the authors' roles and ensure that they do not make the acceptance decision on their own submission. |
38
Policy Analysis
| Type description | A systematic, evidence-based analysis of a defined public policy, governance, or institutional problem and its options or effects. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Manuscripts that use theory, empirical material, comparative analysis, policy documents, or other evidence to assess policy design, implementation, institutional mechanisms, effects, or choices. |
| Not suitable for | Opinion articles that state a policy position without adequate analysis or evidence, or highly concise Policy Briefs that directly provide action recommendations for policymakers. |
| Suggested structure | Abstract; Policy problem and context; Framework or methods; Evidence and analysis; Options or effects; Discussion; Conclusion and recommendations. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 3,000–6,000 words; 150–250-word abstract; figures and tables as required. |
| What authors should provide | Describe the policy problem, analytical framework, evidence sources, and methods; distinguish facts, interpretations, and normative recommendations; and disclose relevant policy consulting, funding, and interests. |
39
Policy Brief
| Type description | A concise, decision-oriented synthesis of a policy problem, key evidence, options, and actionable recommendations. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Manuscripts that translate existing research or policy analysis into concise, actionable information for policymakers or practitioners, with emphasis on the problem, evidence summary, and options for action. |
| Not suitable for | Full reports of original research design, methods, and results, or policy analyses requiring extensive discussion of theoretical frameworks, research methods, and evidence. |
| Suggested structure | Executive summary/key messages; Policy problem; Key evidence; Options; Recommendations; Implementation considerations; References. |
| Suggested length and abstract | Normally 1,500–3,000 words; a conventional abstract is generally not required, but 3–5 key messages may be provided. Figures and tables should be kept concise and used only where they present key evidence effectively and support policy communication. |
| What authors should provide | Identify the policy audience, evidence sources, basis for the recommendations, and major uncertainties; disclose relevant funding, consulting relationships, and competing interests. |
40
Guideline
| Type description | Practice recommendations developed through systematic evidence appraisal and transparent methods to provide structured guidance for clinical practice, public health, professional practice, policy, or other decision-making. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Guidelines developed or updated by professional bodies, scholarly organizations, working groups, or other qualified institutions with clear organizational responsibility and a defined methodological process. |
| Not suitable for | General recommendations based on the personal experience of a small number of authors, or documents presented as guidelines without systematic evidence appraisal and management of conflicts of interest. |
| Suggested structure | Abstract/key recommendations; Scope; Target users; Panel and conflicts; Evidence methods; Recommendation process; Recommendations and rationale; Implementation and updating. |
| Suggested length and abstract | Usually 4,000–10,000 words; 250–350-word abstract; supplementary material may be used. |
| What authors should provide | Provide information on the developing organisation or working group, member selection and management of competing interests, evidence-search and appraisal methods, the recommendation-development process, external review, and the updating plan. Submit an applicable reporting checklist, such as RIGHT, where appropriate. |
41
Consensus Statement
| Type description | Recommendations or shared conclusions developed by a representative expert group through a transparent consensus process. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Issues where evidence is insufficient for a rigorous evidence-based guideline but a representative expert group can establish a needed professional consensus through structured discussion, Delphi methods, formal voting, or another transparent process. |
| Not suitable for | Manuscripts that merely compile expert opinions, fail to describe expert selection or the consensus process, lack conflict-of-interest management, or label the views of a few individuals as consensus. |
| Suggested structure | Abstract; Background and scope; Panel; Evidence; Consensus methods; Statements/recommendations; Unresolved issues; Discussion; Limitations; Update plan. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 3,500–8,000 words; 200–300-word abstract; tables may summarize statements and voting. |
| What authors should provide | Clearly describe the convening organisation, expert-selection criteria and process, the evidence base used to form the consensus, the consensus method and prespecified threshold, any voting or Delphi process, the identification and management of competing interests, and review or approval by the relevant organisation. Authors should retain the records necessary to document the consensus process for inspection by the editorial office if required. |
42
Position Statement
| Type description | An authorized institutional position on a defined scholarly, professional, ethical, or policy issue. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Official statements in which a relevant organisation sets out its position, principles, priorities, or professional claims on a specific issue. The statement may be based on existing evidence and expert discussion but is not required to follow the complete recommendation-development process expected of a Guideline. |
| Not suitable for | Opinion articles published without authorization or endorsement by the relevant organization, or documents claiming to make formal practice recommendations without a standardized guideline-development method and transparent process. |
| Suggested structure | Optional abstract; Background; Authorized position; Supporting basis; Scope and limitations; Implications; Approval and declarations. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 2,000–5,000 words; optional 150–250-word abstract; figures and tables as required. |
| What authors should provide | Provide evidence of authorization by the named organization, describe the development and approval process, identify contributors and competing interests, state the evidentiary basis and scope of the position, and explain its implications and limitations. |
43
Tutorial
| Type description | An article providing a systematic, clear, and practically useful explanation of important concepts, methods, techniques, tools, or workflows in a defined field, intended to help the target audience understand, learn, and apply the relevant knowledge or method. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Articles that systematically explain important concepts, theories, methods, experimental or computational techniques, research tools, or workflows for a defined audience with stated prerequisites and learning objectives. |
| Not suitable for | General literature reviews, or manuscripts primarily intended to promote a course, training programme, software, equipment, or product. Manuscripts lacking clear learning objectives, systematic explanation, or necessary instructional design are also unsuitable. |
| Suggested structure | Abstract; Target audience and prerequisites; Learning objectives; Background and fundamental concepts; Systematic explanation of the core content; Examples or practical applications; Common problems, limitations, or precautions; Summary. The structure may be adapted to disciplinary characteristics. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 3,000–6,000 words; 150–250-word abstract; supporting materials as needed. |
| What authors should provide | Clearly define the target audience, learning objectives, and necessary prior knowledge. Depending on the topic, provide examples, illustrations, code, experimental procedures, cases, or other supporting materials needed for understanding and practical application. Any third-party materials or resources must comply with applicable copyright and licensing requirements. |
44
Book Review
| Type description | A concise, independent, and critical assessment of a scholarly book or edited volume, focusing on its central argument, scholarly contribution, methods or source material, limitations, and place within the relevant field rather than merely summarising its contents. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Critical assessment of the main contribution, argument, methods, audience, and scholarly significance of a single academic book or edited volume. |
| Not suitable for | Manuscripts that merely summarize content without substantive evaluation; manuscripts that fail to disclose relationships with the author, editor, or publisher that could affect independence; or manuscripts containing long unlicensed extracts. |
| Suggested structure | Full bibliographic details; Subject and positioning; Principal arguments and contribution; Critical assessment; Overall judgement. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 800–1,500 words; normally no abstract; concise references. |
| What authors should provide | Provide complete bibliographic details, including the author or editor, title, publisher, year of publication, and ISBN. Give page numbers for direct quotations; disclose any relationship with the author, editor, or publisher and whether a review copy was received; and obtain copyright permission for third-party material used beyond the limits of fair quotation. |
45
Review Essay
| Type description | An in-depth comparative, synthetic, and original scholarly discussion based on a critical assessment of one or more related academic books, situating the works within a broader theoretical context, disciplinary development, or scholarly debate. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Comparative and original scholarly discussion of one or more related books, addressing a shared theme, theoretical question, research tradition, or academic controversy and extending beyond a single book review. |
| Not suitable for | Articles in which the books are merely a pretext and the manuscript has become a general literature review, or manuscripts that describe books one by one without cross-book comparison and independent argument. |
| Suggested structure | Bibliographic details; Thematic introduction; Core arguments; Comparative critical analysis; Wider scholarly context; Synthesis and conclusion. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 2,000–4,000 words; abstract and keywords in accordance with the journal's policy. |
| What authors should provide | Provide complete bibliographic details for all works reviewed; give page numbers for direct quotations; disclose any relationship with the authors, editors, or publishers and whether review copies were received; and obtain any necessary permission for third-party copyrighted material. |
46
Conference Content
| Type description | A type used for formally published journal content related to a specific conference, including Conference Highlights and Conference Poster Collections. Its defining feature is that the content arises from or centres on a particular conference, rather than being a conventional scholarly article type determined by research design. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Journal-approved and formally published conference-related content, such as Conference Highlights or Conference Poster Collections. |
| Not suitable for | Manuscripts unrelated to a journal-approved conference or conference partnership. Conference papers substantially expanded for submission as conventional journal articles should be assigned the appropriate standard article type according to their content and research nature. |
| Suggested structure | Conference details and context; Thematic overview; Principal scholarly content; Outcomes or discussion; Summary and outlook; Publication information. |
| Suggested length and abstract | Length depends on the approved conference format; an abstract of 150–250 words for full-length articles, where applicable. |
| What authors should provide | State the conference name, date, location, collaborative relationship, any prior publication, and copyright or licensing status; avoid duplicate publication. |
47
Educational Article
| Type description | A scholarly report of an educational method, curriculum, intervention, resource, or teaching practice and its implementation or evaluation. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Research and practice concerning curriculum and instructional design, pedagogical innovation, laboratory or practice-based teaching, educational technology, learning-resource development, or systematic evaluation of teaching and learning outcomes. |
| Not suitable for | Manuscripts that merely introduce a curriculum, teaching activity, or educational product without clear educational objectives, implementation, lessons learned, or systematic evaluation. Manuscripts primarily intended for recruitment promotion, training promotion, or educational-product marketing will not be considered. |
| Suggested structure | Abstract; Background and objectives; Educational design; Implementation; Evaluation methods; Results; Lessons, limitations, and transferability; Conclusion. |
| Suggested length and abstract | 3,000–6,000 words; 150–250-word abstract; figures and supplementary materials as required. |
| What authors should provide | State the educational objectives, target learners, instructional or intervention process, and evaluation methods. Where learning outcomes or education research are reported, describe the study design, data collection, and analysis; comply with applicable ethics approval, informed-consent, and privacy requirements. |
4. Post-publication Notices and Maintenance of the Scholarly Record
To maintain the accuracy, integrity, and transparency of the scholarly record, POLYMAS may publish a Correction, Erratum, Addendum, Expression of Concern, or Retraction after an article has been formally published, as appropriate. These notices are not article types selected by authors at submission; they form part of the formal scholarly record.
POLYMAS will consider post-publication issues carefully in accordance with its published ethics policies, available evidence, due process, applicable law, and relevant institutional findings. The principles governing Expressions of Concern and Retractions are informed by COPE guidance.
01
Correction
| Type description | A Correction is published to address a substantive error attributable to the authors or otherwise identified in a published article. It is appropriate when the error affects the accuracy, clarity, or completeness of the article but does not invalidate its principal findings or conclusions. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | A Correction may address errors or omissions involving data, figures, equations, methodological descriptions, author names or affiliations, author contributions, acknowledgements, funding information, competing interest declarations, references, or other material information. Minor spelling, grammatical, or formatting issues that do not affect the meaning of the article or the scholarly record will not normally require a separate Correction. |
| Publication and linkage | The Correction will identify the content being corrected and describe the relevant changes. It will be linked bidirectionally with the original article, which will remain available and will be clearly marked to indicate that a Correction has been published. The version of record will not be replaced without a transparent notice. |
02
Erratum
| Type description | An Erratum is published to correct an error introduced by the journal or publisher during editing, typesetting, file conversion, metadata processing, or another stage of the publication process. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | An Erratum may address typesetting errors, misplaced figures or tables, incorrectly displayed equations or symbols, omitted text, incorrect pagination or links, metadata errors, or other production-related problems that materially affect the accuracy, interpretation, or use of the article. |
| Publication and linkage | The Erratum will identify the error and the correction and will state that the problem arose during the publication process. It will be linked bidirectionally with the original article, which will also be clearly marked to indicate that an Erratum has been published. |
03
Addendum
| Type description | An Addendum provides important information that becomes available or is identified after publication and assists readers in understanding, evaluating, or using the original article. It does not replace or alter the principal findings or conclusions of the article. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | An Addendum may provide necessary methodological details, information about access to data or materials, additional disclosures, explanatory information, or other content that materially assists the interpretation of the original article. An Addendum is not used to publish a new independent study, extend the conclusions of the original article, or address an error that calls the reliability of the article into question. Such matters may instead require a Correction, Expression of Concern, or Retraction. |
| Publication and linkage | The Addendum will be published as a separate publication record and linked bidirectionally with the original article. Additional academic assessment may be required depending on the nature and significance of the information provided. |
04
Expression of Concern
| Type description | POLYMAS may publish an Expression of Concern when substantial concerns have been raised about the reliability or research integrity of an article, or about its compliance with publication-ethics requirements, but an investigation has not been completed, the available evidence is insufficient to support a final decision, or the outcome of an investigation cannot be obtained promptly. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | An Expression of Concern may be appropriate when: • credible information indicates that some or all of the findings may be unreliable; • the article may involve a research or publication ethics issue that remains under investigation; • an investigation has been initiated by an institution but has not yet reached a conclusion; • the investigation has been delayed, or relevant authors, institutions, or other parties have not provided necessary information; or • readers should be alerted to a potential risk while a final decision remains pending. An Expression of Concern does not constitute a finding that an author has committed research misconduct and should not be interpreted as the final outcome of an investigation. |
| Publication and linkage | The Expression of Concern will describe the known concerns and the status of any investigation as objectively as possible. It will be linked bidirectionally with the original article. POLYMAS will review the notice in light of subsequent findings and may publish a Correction, Retraction, or another follow-up notice where appropriate. |
05
Retraction
| Type description | POLYMAS may retract an article when there is sufficient evidence that its findings or content are no longer reliable, or when its publication involves a serious issue relating to research ethics, publication ethics, or applicable law. The primary purpose of retraction is to correct the scholarly record and protect readers, rather than to punish authors. |
|---|---|
| Suitable for | Retraction may be appropriate when: • the findings are no longer reliable because of a major error, a serious data problem, or research misconduct; • the article contains plagiarism, redundant publication, or substantial undisclosed duplication; • data, images, materials, or other content have been used without appropriate authorization; • the research involves a serious problem concerning ethical approval, informed consent, privacy, or the protection of participants; • the peer-review process, authorship, or editorial process has been improperly manipulated; or • another serious issue materially compromises the integrity of the scholarly record. Where a problem affects only a limited part of an article and the principal findings and conclusions remain reliable, POLYMAS will normally consider publishing a Correction rather than retracting the article. |
| Publication and linkage | The Retraction notice will identify the retracted article, explain the reason for retraction, identify the party initiating the retraction, and state whether the authors agree with the decision. The notice will be linked bidirectionally with the original article and retained as part of the permanent scholarly record. Except in exceptional circumstances involving binding legal requirements, serious privacy risks, or a substantial and immediate risk of harm, the retracted article will remain available on the publication platform but will be clearly and prominently marked as retracted. POLYMAS handles post-publication corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions in accordance with its published ethics policies and with reference to relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). |
5. Implementation Notes
These are publisher-level definitions and recommendations. Each journal may offer a subset of article types according to disciplinary practice, editorial capacity, and publication format, and may set more specific requirements for length, abstracts, figures, references, reporting standards, and supplementary files.