JSR Submission Guidelines

Editorial Ethics Policy

Instructions for Authors:

1. Submission of Manuscripts

The Journal of Sport Rehabilitation (JSR) uses a web-based system, Manuscript Central, for the submission and tracking of manuscripts. Authors must register with ManuscriptCentral (http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hk_jsr). Submissions undergo a peer-review process; submissions are read by the editor and at least two reviewers through a blind review process. The time between submission and a decision regarding acceptance for publication takes approximately 7 – 10 weeks, but may be longer.

All submissions must be submitted electronically via ManuscriptCentral. Submissions must be prepared in English as a typed MS Word document. The document must be double-spaced, include page and line numbers, and use margins at least 1inch. Author information should not be included any place in the manuscript (i.e. title page, subjects, methods) and any identifying information created within MS Word settings should be removed. A cover letter with author information will be included during the on-line process. While completing the on-line process you will be required to provide the title of the manuscript, name(s) of author(s), institutional affiliation(s), short title for running head (15 word limit), mailing address, e-mail address, and fax and phone numbers of the author who is to receive the proofs. The required structure of the manuscript is detailed below. All manuscripts must contain an abstract with formatted subheadings of no more than 300 words. All tables and figures must be clearly labeled and should be submitted as separate files via Manuscript Central. JSR discourages the use of already printed and copyrighted materials. If necessary, the author must include a letter granting permission to reprint the material.

Submitted manuscripts may not be in the review process by any other publication when, or during review, by the Journal of Sport Rehabilitation. If accepted, authors of manuscripts accepted for publication are required to transfer copyright to Human Kinetics, Inc.

2. Format/Preparation Guidelines

Style: Manuscripts should be written in first person using the active voice. Writing should be concise and direct. Avoid using unnecessary jargon and abbreviations, but use an acronym or abbreviation if it is more commonly recognized than the spelled-out version of a term. Formats of numbers and units and all other style matters should follow the AMA Manual of Style, 9th edition.

3. Parts of the Manuscript

Structure requirements that apply to all manuscript submissions:

Structured Abstract: Abstracts must be structured as described in the AMA Manual of Style, 9th edition, and contain 300 words or fewer.

· Original research manuscripts must include the following headings: Context, Objective, Design, Setting, Patients or Other Participants, Intervention(s), Main Outcome Measures, Results, and Conclusions.

· Structured abstracts for systematic reviews or meta-analyses should include the following headings: Context, Objectives, Evidence Acquisition (data sources, study selection, quality assessment and data extraction), Evidence Synthesis (data synthesis) and? Conclusions.

· Structured abstracts for critically appraised topics should include the following headings: Clinical Scenario, Clinical Question, Summary of Key Findings, Clinical Bottom Line, and Strength of Recommendation.

The body of the manuscript is specific to the type of manuscript submission (each is detailed below):

· Original Research: Reports of original data should include the following parts: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion and Conclusions.

In the Introduction, build the problem and specifically state the purpose and hypotheses of the study. Do not label the introduction section.

The Methods section should include the following subheadings: Design (study design, not statistical design should be included with respective independent and dependent variables), Patients or Participants (subject information including a statement that IRB approval was granted [without indicating author’s affiliation], in the spirit of the Helsinki declaration), Procedures (clearly and succinctly describe interventions and outcome measures), and Statistical Analyses.

The Results section should include a presentation of results relevant to the stated objectives. Do not explain why the results turned out as they did or justify the use of a specific statistical procedure in this section. This section should not contain too much statistical jargon that may confuse readers. If tables or figures are used, the information should not be repeated in the text.

The Discussion section is a formal consideration and critical examination of the study. The research hypotheses of the study should be addressed and considered in the context of other published works. The study's limitations and generalizability should also be addressed.

The Conclusions section should summarize the most clinically pertinent findings of the study. Conclusions should be directly supported by the data and should highlight the clinical importance of the work that was performed while avoiding overgeneralizations.

· Systematic Reviews (Including Meta-analysis).

These manuscripts are systematic, critical assessments of literature and data sources pertaining to clinical topics. Emphasis should include cause, diagnosis, prognosis, therapeutic intervention, therapeutic rehabilitation, or prevention. All articles or data sources should be systematically selected for inclusion and critically evaluated, and the search and selection process should be described in the manuscript. The specific type of study or analysis, population, intervention, exposure, and tests or outcomes should be described for each article or data source.

The data sources should be as current as possible, ideally with the search having been conducted within several months of manuscript submission. A structured abstract is required. Recommended length: 3000-4000 words (not including abstract, tables, figures, and references). For an example of a Systematic Review please see Medina McKeon JM, Yancosek KE. Neural gliding techniques for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome: a systematic review. J Sport Rehabil. 2008;17:325-342.

Reports of Meta-analyses: Meta-analyses are also considered as reviews. Authors of reports of meta-analyses of randomized trials are encouraged to submit the QUOROM flow diagram and checklist, please see Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA. 2001;285:1987-1991. or (http://www.consort-statement.org/). Authors of meta-analyses of observational studies are encouraged to submit the proposed MOOSE checklist, please see Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Stroup DF. et al. JAMA.2000: 283:2008-2012. or (http://www.consort-statement.org/).

Structured Abstract

Context: Should succinctly explain the importance of the review questions.

Objectives: Provide a precise statement of the primary question addressed by the review followed by any secondary questions.

Evidence Acquisition: (data sources, study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction).

Evidence Synthesis: (data synthesis).

Conclusions:

Main Text

Context: Background, the need for the review should be justified by describing clearly the problem for which evidence of effectiveness was sought.

Objectives: Questions to be addressed by the review(hypotheses tested).

Evidence Acquisition: (how the research was conducted)

Data sources and search strategy

Study selection (inclusion and exclusion criteria). The details of the study selection
    process should be reported explicitly, preferably using a flow diagram. A list of studies
    excluded from the review should also be reported, where possible, giving the reasons
    for each exclusion.

Study quality assessment.

Data extraction.

Evidence synthesis:

Details of the included and excluded studies.

Results of the review.

Findings of the review. Inclusion of the point measures and the measures of variability
    are encouraged. For example, 95% confidence intervals should be incorporated
    around the calculation of effect sizes, odds ratios, relative risk, numbers needed to
    treat, and sensitivity and specificity.

Robustness of the results (sensitivity analyses).

Discussion: (interpretation of results)

Conclusions:

Recommendations for health care

Implications for further research

Strength of Recommendation

Acknowledgements:

Conflict of interest:

References:

Appendices:

· Critically Appraised Topic (CAT)

These manuscripts are a shorter summary of available evidence focused around a specific clinical question in sport rehabilitation. A critically appraised topic (CAT) is similar to a systematic review in that it summarizes the best evidence in a body of literature; however, it is a shorter manuscript and less rigorous critical review for answering the clinical question of interest. CATs provide an excellent mechanism for busy evidence-based practice clinicians to collect and disseminate information they find while searching for answers to important clinical questions. A CAT typically includes a critical appraisal of at least 3 high quality studies but not more than 5. Conversely, a summary of a single paper is referred to as a Critically Appraised Paper (CAP) (NOTE: The JSR is NOT accepting CAPs for review). A CAT seeks to find the best available evidence in a less rigorous search process, that is more readily available to clinicians, and then critically appraise the papers selected for inclusion using accepted standards for evidence-based practice. For an example of a CAT, please see Valovich McLeod, TC. The effectiveness of balance training programs on reducing the incidence of ankle sprains in adolescent athletes. J Sport Rehabil. 2008;17:316-323. More information about CATs is available at www.otcats.com and www.cebm.net.

Critically Appraised Topic Author Guidelines: These author guidelines were adapted from the Occupational Therapy Critically Appraised Topics CATS Template available at: http://www.otcats.com/template/index.html. JSR also recognizes the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine as the source for defining Levels of Evidence and Strength of Recommendation (http://www.cebm.net). The template provided should be used when preparing CAT submissions to JSR CAT submissions. For an example of a Critically Appraised Topic, please see Valovich McLeod, TC. The effectiveness of balance training programs on reducing the incidence of ankle sprains in adolescent athletes. J Sport Rehabil. 2008;17:316-323.

Structured Abstract

Structured abstracts should provide the following key information in one page or less.

Clinical Scenario: A brief description of the clinical scenario leading to the clinical question.

Clinical Question: A focused clinical question of importance in sport rehabilitation.

Summary of Key Findings: A bullet point listing of the key clinical findings from the search.

Clinical Bottom Line: The most important take home message from the available evidence. Some statement regarding the level of available evidence and subsequent strength of recommendations is required.

Strength of Recommendation: A brief description of the strength of evidence summarized following the critical appraisal.

Main Text

Search Strategy: Describe the databases and sites searched, the search terms utilized, and any search limits. The search should ideally be conducted within several months of submission for publication and should seek to obtain the best available evidence.

Patient/Client and Condition:

Intervention (or Assessment):

Comparison:

Outcome(s):

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria: Explicitly list all inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Search Results: In narrative form, describe the results of your search.

Best Evidence: Identify how many studies where chosen for inclusion and appraisal in this CAT and provide the reasons that these studies were selected (i.e., level 1 study, etc). JSR strongly recommends authors use the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine’s definitions in determining level of evidence (http://www.cebm.net).

Summary of Best Evidence: Each of the studies chosen for inclusion in the CAT should be critically appraised in a comparative table. The table might include the following headings:

Study Design:

Participants:

Intervention Investigated:

Control:

Experimental:

Outcome Measures (Primary and Secondary):

Main Findings:

Level of Evidence:

Validity Score:

Conclusion:

Implications for Practice, Education, and Future Research: Practical discussion based on the information provided from the appraisal of current literature. Anecdotal comments regarding whether or not this intervention is commonly used clinically, cost of this intervention, etc, are appropriate.

Acknowledgements:

Conflict of Interest:

References:

4. References: Each citation in the text must be designated by a superscripted numeral, and full information must appear in the reference list. Reference information must be accurate. References must be limited to directly pertinent published works or papers that have been accepted for publication; usually this can be achieved with less than 30 references, although review papers might have more extensive reference lists. The reference list is to be double-spaced, arranged in the order the works are first cited, and numbered serially, with only one reference per number. Entries in the reference list should be consistent Index Medicus for journal abbreviations (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/tsd/serials/terms_cond.html) and follow the AMA Manual of Style, 9th edition, as follows:

Journal Articles: Surname of first author, initials, then surname and initials of each coauthor; title of article (capitalize only the first word and proper nouns), name of the journal (italicized and abbreviated according to style of Index Medicus), year, volume, and inclusive page numbers:

Jacobs C, Mattacola CG. Gender comparison of eccentric hip abductor strength and knee joint kinematics when landing from a jump. J Sport Rehabil. 2005;14:346-355.

Book References: Author(s) as above, title of book (italicized and all major words capitalized), city and state/province of publication, publisher, and year:

Starkey C, Johnson G. Athletic Training and Sports Medicine. Salisbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers;2005.

Chapter in an Edited Book. Same as book references, but add the name of the chapter author(s) and title of chapter (capitalize first word and proper nouns) before the book information and the page range at the end:

Perrin DH. The evaluation process in rehabilitation. In: Prentice WE, ed. Rehabilitation Techniques in Sports Medicine. 2nd ed. St Louis, Mo: Mosby Year Book Inc; 1994:253-276.

5. Figures and Tables: Figures should be professional in appearance and have clean, crisp lines. They should be no larger that 8 by 10 in, but keep in mind that they might have to be reduced to fit the journal's format. Hand drawing and hand lettering are not acceptable. PC-generated screens (ie, dot patterns, or shades of gray, do not reproduce well during the printing process and should not be used to create shading in figures. Stripe patterns or solids (black or white) are better choices for shading. Figures should be submitted as separate files via Mansucript Central and must be either JPEG or TIFF format at a resolution of 300 dots per inch (dpi). Authors are urged to submit illustrations rather than tables. When tabular material is necessary, it should not duplicate the text. Tables should be double-spaced on separate sheets and include brief titles.

6. Author Submission Instructions for Video

Short video clips may now be submitted to illustrate your article in the online version of the Journal of Sport Rehabilitation. Video allows elaboration of techniques, testing procedures, or clinical observations. Video should supplement and add to the conclusiveness of the manuscript. Replication of the figures in the text is not recommended. Files may be submitted through Manuscript Central for review as part of the manuscript; each digital video file should be designated and uploaded as a “supplementary file,” and should be no larger than 15–20 MB (or 5–10 seconds, depending upon compression). Video should be submitted in either Window Media Media Video (.WMV) or QuickTime (.mov) format with standard frame size of 320 × 240 pixels and frame rate of 30 frames per second. You also should indicate in the cover letter accompanying your Manuscript Central submission that you have submitted a video file.

Digital material from a source not original to the author must be accompanied by a statement from the copyright holder giving you permission to publish it; the source and copyright holder must be credited in the article.

Human Kinetics will inspect all video submissions for quality and technical specifications, and we reserve the right to reject any video submission that does not meet quality standards and specifications.