Submission guidelines
Instructions for Authors
Article Types
Discover Oncology accepts submissions of the following article types:
Brief Communication
Brief Communications are short papers that present significant new observations of wide potential interest to readers, and that will likely stimulate further research in the field. Brief Communications may present results that are not sufficiently elaborated to justify a full Research Article but provide compelling evidence for their potential significance.
Case Report
Case reports submitted to Discover Oncology should make a contribution to medical knowledge and must have educational value or highlight the need for a change in clinical practice or diagnostic/prognostic approaches. Discover Oncology will not consider case reports that make specific claims about preventive or therapeutic interventions, as these generally require stronger evidence.
Authors should describe how the case report is rare or unusual as well as its educational and/or scientific merits in the covering letter that will accompany the submission of the manuscript. Case report submissions will be assessed by the Editors and will be sent for peer review if considered appropriate for the journal. Case reports should include relevant positive and negative findings from history, examination and investigation, and can include clinical photographs, provided these are accompanied by a statement that written consent to publish was obtained from the patient(s).
Word limit: Articles should be no longer than 1000 words (excluding title page, figure legends, and references), with a maximum of two figures or tables and 10 references. Case Reports should be accompanied by a completed CARE checklist.
Case Study
Case Studies report specific instances of interesting phenomena, providing relevant material to support both research and education through the transferability of experiences, events and experiments.
Clinical Trial
Clinical Trials include both observational studies and randomized clinical trials. Randomized controlled trials must follow the CONSORT guidelines.
Trial registration number (TRN) and date of registration is required for all randomized clinical trials, and this should be included as the last line of the manuscript abstract (see section below: Research involving human participants, their data or biological material). Purely observational studies will not require registration.
All randomized controlled trials should be accompanied by a completed CONSORT checklist. A CONSORT flowchart should also be provided as a figure or as supplementary material. Please find the flowchart here.
Springer Nature endorses the toolkits and guidelines produced by the following bodies:
1 Committee on Publication Ethics
2 Medical Publishing Insights and Practices Initiative
Word limit: 5,000 words excluding cover page and references.
Comment
Comment articles can focus on policy, science and society or purely scientific issues. Comments are usually commissioned by the editors. They should be of immediate interest to a broad readership and should be written in an accessible, non-technical style.
Data Note
Data Notes briefly and concisely describe sound research data with the aim of increasing visibility and transparency, supporting the reuse of valuable research data and helping authors to comply with funder mandates on data sharing. Data sets must be deposited in a recommended repository before submission.
All authors must use the Data note template. Please follow the instructions in the template and complete table 1 including information on data file formats and data identifiers (e.g. DOI, accession number).
Please ensure you have followed the template instructions, and your data have been deposited in the appropriate recommended data repositories (not attached as additional files). Your Data Note must also include all the relevant declarations as noted below (eg Data availability).
Please adhere to the word limit of 1000 words (excluding list of abbreviations, declarations, table 1 and reference list). In addition, there are specific word limits for each of the following sections:
Abstract: 200 words
Objective: 300 words
Data description: 500 words
Limitations: 300 words
Apart from table 1, data notes must not contain any tables or figures. Instead, tables and figures should be uploaded to the repository and be listed in table 1.
Further guidelines on these sections are included in the template
Please aim to write the data note clearly in a way that it can be understood by a broad group of scientists (non-specialists). Abbreviations and technical jargon should be minimized. Multiple related datasets can be described in a single data note if those datasets link to a common research project, share samples or study subjects.
Perspective
The perspective article-type denotes a scholarly review and discussion of the primary research literature that does not meet the criteria for a review article - either because the scope is too narrow, or a primary purpose of the piece is to advocate a controversial position or a speculative hypothesis, or to discuss work primarily from one or a few research groups. Perspectives tend to be more forward looking and/or speculative than reviews and may take a narrower field of view. They may be opinionated but should remain balanced, and are intended to stimulate discussion and consideration of new approaches to investigation and understanding of a field.
Registered Report
Registered Reports are intended to strengthen the methodology and transparency of Research Articles by seeking to answer defined questions. Submission is a two-stage process. In the first, the authors submit a proposed study (including the hypothesis and methodology to be used). If it passes initial review, the journal will make a commitment to publish the results, regardless of the outcome, assuming that the methods and analysis in the final study conform to the initially approved proposal.
Find out more about this publication format in the Registered Reports section below, and read our reviewer guidelines for more information.
Research
Research articles present new scientific results within the scope of the journal that have not been published previously and are not being considered for publication elsewhere.
Review
Review articles provide critical accounts and comprehensive surveys of topics of major current interest within the scope of the journal.
Registered Reports
Registered Reports are a publication format in which the research question and the quality of methodology are peer reviewed before the data are collected and analysed. High quality protocols addressing well framed questions are then provisionally accepted for publication before data collection begins. This format allows methodological issues to be addressed before time and resources are invested in experiments, and helps minimize publication bias and research bias in hypothesis-driven research.
The format also allows exploratory (unregistered) analyses that may be suggested by interim results, provided that the Editor is notified; and the inclusion of serendipitous findings.
The submission and review process for Registered Reports is divided into two distinct stages.
• Stage 1 submission : Authors submit manuscripts including only an Introduction, Methods (including proposed analyses), and Pilot Data (where applicable).
• Stage 1 review: : Reviewers evaluate study proposals before data are collected, assessing the importance of the research question, feasibility of the methodology, and analysis pipeline.
• In principle acceptance (IPA): Manuscripts that pass peer review will be issued an IPA, indicating that the article will be published pending successful completion of the study.
• Stage 2 submission: Following study completion, authors submit their finalized manuscript for re-review, now including Results and Discussion sections.
• Stage 2 review: Reviewers appraise whether the authors adhered to the pre-registered experimental procedures and that any conclusions are justified given the data.
The essential feature of the Registered Reports format is that a significant part of the manuscript is assessed prior to data collection. The submission and review process is consequently divided into two stages.
Stage 1: Initial manuscript submission and review
Initial submissions should include the stage 1 manuscript (requirements detailed below) and a brief cover letter. Authors are welcome to submit presubmission enquiries for advice on the likely suitability of a study as a Registered Report.
Cover letter
Please include a brief scientific case for consideration and an estimated timeline for completing the study if the initial submission is accepted in principle.
Introduction
This section should include a review of the relevant literature that motivates the research question and a full description of the experimental aims and hypotheses. Please note that following IPA, the Introduction section cannot be altered.
Methods
The methods section should include:
• Full description of proposed sample characteristics, including criteria for data inclusion and exclusion (e.g. outlier extraction). Procedures for objectively defining exclusion criteria due to technical errors or for any other reasons must be specified, including details of how and under what conditions data would be replaced.
• A description of experimental procedures in sufficient detail to allow another researcher to repeat the methodology exactly, without requiring further information. These procedures must be adhered to exactly in the subsequent experiments or any Stage 2 manuscript can be rejected.
• Proposed analysis pipeline, including all preprocessing steps, and a precise description of all planned analyses, including appropriate correction for multiple comparisons. Any covariates or regressors must be stated. Where analysis decisions are contingent on the outcome of prior analyses, these contingencies must be specified and adhered to. Only pre-planned analyses can be reported in the main Results section of Stage 2 submissions. However, unplanned exploratory analyses will be admissible in a separate section of the Results (see below).
• Studies involving Neyman-Pearson inference must include a statistical power analysis. Estimated effect sizes should be justified with reference to the existing literature. Since publication bias over-inflates published estimates of effect size, power analysis must be based on the lowest available or meaningful estimate of the effect size. For frequentist analysis plans, the a priori power must be 0.9 or higher for all proposed hypothesis tests. In the case of highly uncertain effect sizes, a variable sample size and interim data analysis is permissible but with inspection points stated in advance, appropriate Type I error correction for ‘peeking’ employed, and a final stopping rule for data collection outlined.
• Methods involving Bayesian hypothesis testing are encouraged. For studies involving analyses with Bayes factors, the predictions of the theory must be specified so that a Bayes factor can be calculated. Authors should indicate what distribution will be used to represent the predictions of the theory and how its parameters will be specified. For example, will you use a uniform up to some specified maximum, or a normal/half-normal to represent a likely effect size, or a JZS/Cauchy with a specified scaling constant? For inference by Bayes factors, authors must be able to guarantee data collection until the Bayes factor is at least 6 times in favour of the experimental hypothesis over the null hypothesis (or vice versa). Authors with resource limitations are permitted to specify a maximum feasible sample size at which data collection must cease regardless of the Bayes factor; however to be eligible for advance acceptance this number must be sufficiently large that inconclusive results at this sample size would nevertheless be an important message for the field.
• Full descriptions must be provided of any outcome-neutral criteria that must be met for successful testing of the stated hypotheses. Such quality checks might include the absence of floor or ceiling effects in data distributions, positive controls, or other quality checks that are orthogonal to the experimental hypotheses.
• Timeline for completion of the study and proposed resubmission date if Stage 1 review is successful. Extensions to this deadline can be negotiated with the Assistant Editor.
• Any description of prospective methods or analysis plans should be written in future tense.
Pilot Data
• Optional. Can be included to establish proof of concept, effect size estimations, or feasibility of proposed methods. Any pilot experiments will be published with the final version of the manuscript and will be clearly distinguished from data obtained for the pre-registered experiment(s).
Following stage 1 peer review manuscripts will either be rejected, given the opportunity to revise or offered an in-principle acceptance (IPA). An IPA indicates that the article will be published pending completion of the approved methods and analytic procedures, in addition to a defensible interpretation of the results.
In Principle Accepted (IPA) Stage 1 reports are not published in the journal. Instead they are deposited in a recognized repository (either publicly or under embargo until Stage 2) and integrated into a single article following approval of the final Stage 2 manuscript. We have created a Figshare repository for Stage 1 protocol deposition, and offer to upload the protocol on the authors' behalf.
Authors are reminded that any deviation from the stated experimental procedures, regardless of how minor it may seem to the authors, could lead to rejection of the manuscript at Stage 2. In cases where the pre-registered protocol is altered after IPA due to unforeseen circumstances (e.g. change of equipment or technical error), the authors must consult the Managing Editor immediately for advice, and prior to the completion of data collection. Minor changes to the protocol may be permitted according to editorial discretion. In such cases, IPA would be preserved and the deviation reported in the Stage 2 submission. If the authors wish to alter the experimental procedures more substantially following IPA but still wish to publish their article as a Registered Report then the manuscript must be withdrawn and resubmitted as a new Stage 1 submission.
Note that registered analyses must be undertaken, but additional unregistered analyses can also be included in a final manuscript (see below).
Stage 2: Full manuscript submission and review
Authors will be asked to complete their study and resubmit their manuscripts within 12 months of receiving an in-principle acceptance. Failure to meet the agreed timetable may result in a stage 1 manuscript being considered withdrawn.
A stage 2 submission should include the following additions:
Cover Letter
• Confirmation in the resubmission Cover Letter that all non-pilot data was collected after the data of IPA, and analysed in the manner previously described. Any unforeseen changes in methods and analyses must be clearly noted.
• Please note that the Introduction cannot be altered from the approved stage 1 submission, and the stated hypothesis cannot be amended or expanded.
Results and Discussion
• The outcome of all registered analyses must be reported in the manuscript, except in rare instances where a registered and approved analysis is subsequently shown to be logically flawed or unfounded. In such cases, the authors, reviewers, and editor must agree that a collective error of judgment was made and that the analysis is inappropriate. In such cases the analysis would still be mentioned in the Methods but omitted with justification from the Results.
• It is reasonable that authors may wish to include additional analyses that were not included in the registered submission. For instance, a new analytic approach might become available between IPA and stage 2 review, or a particularly interesting and unexpected finding may emerge. Such analyses are admissible but must be clearly justified in the text, appropriately caveated, and reported in a separate section of the Results titled “Exploratory analyses”. Authors should be careful not to base their conclusions entirely on the outcome of statistically significant post hoc analyses.
• Authors reporting null hypothesis significance tests are required to report exact p-values and effect sizes for all inferential analyses.
• Raw and processed data must be made freely available in accordance with our data sharing policies.
Conclusions
• This should state clearly the main conclusions and provide an explanation of the importance and relevance of the study to the field.
Please consult the ‘Title page’ section of the submission guidelines for details of the additional Declarations that must be included, as with standard article types (eg funding, data availability, competing interests).
Manuscript withdrawal
Manuscripts can be withdrawn at the authors’ discretion following in-principle acceptance. However, the journal will publish the manuscript’s proposed title, author names, the abstract from the approved stage 1 submission and a brief reason for the failure to complete the study.
Manuscript Submission
Submission of a manuscript implies: that the work described has not been published before; that it is not under consideration for publication anywhere else; that its publication has been approved by all co-authors, if any, as well as by the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – at the institute where the work has been carried out. The publisher will not be held legally responsible should there be any claims for compensation.
Permissions
Authors wishing to include figures, tables, or text passages that have already been published elsewhere are required to obtain permission from the copyright owner(s) for both the print and online format and to include evidence that such permission has been granted when submitting their papers. Any material received without such evidence will be assumed to originate from the authors.
……
更多详情：
https://www.springer.com/journal/12672/submission-guidelines
