Writing for PCCM: Instructions for Authors

Abstract

P ediatric Critical Care Medicine (PCCM) is one of three journals in the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) stable of journals that also includes Critical Care Medicine and Critical Care Explorations. Along with the other journals in this group, we have updated the Instructions for Authors on the journal’s website (see https://journals.lww.com/pccmjournal/pages/default.aspx). In this PCCM Notes, Methods, and Statistics article, I provide some further clarifying points for authors submitting to PCCM. WHO IS AN AUTHOR AND WHAT ARE THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES? PCCM welcomes submissions from all over the world and all pediatric intensive care professionals. Our journal is unique in that both SCCM and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies (WFPICCS) acknowledge that its main purpose is to publish new information that will benefit patients. This mission is hugely important, and readers as well as authors, should be aware of the responsibilities that come with authorship. According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE, see https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html), authorship is based on meeting the requirements of all four of the following criteria: 1) providing “substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work”; 2) “drafting” or critically “revising” the work for “important intellectual content”; 3) giving approval of the version of the work to be submitted to PCCM; and 4) agreeing to be “accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.” At PCCM, the corresponding author is also responsible for determining the selection and order of authors, and is accountable to their sponsoring organization, university, or department in the event of disputes about authorship. PCCM takes no position on these choices. Like other journals, we acknowledge that contemporary science often involves extended collaborations and not all contributors meet the ICMJE standard for authorship. Some manuscripts may be a collective work product, involving several contributors. Hence, large research enterprises have the option of deciding to make the distinction between authors and collaborators. In this circumstance, PCCM recommends that the corresponding author assess each contributor’s role and determine which contributors are also authors and which are collaborators. At the time of submission each contributor’s role can be described using the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT, see https://credit.niso.org/). The journal places no limit on the number of individuals who are listed as contributors, and they will be identified in the United States (US) National Institutes of Health National Library of Medicine (NLM) database curated at PubMed.gov (see https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). ANTIRACISM APPROACH TO CONDUCTING, REPORTING, AND EVALUATING PEDIATRIC CRITICAL CARE RESEARCH All clinical research submitted to PCCM must be hypothesis-driven with appropriate discussion of results and findings. In a recently commissioned Special Article, our invited authors addressed an antiracism approach to conducting, reporting, and evaluating pediatric critical care research (1). This article encapsulates PCCM’s approach. That is, if race/ethnicity do not feature as part of the hypotheses of the work in an article’s Introduction, then these analyses should not appear in the Results or Discussion sections. This approach does not preclude inclusion of such information in the Methods section if the purpose is to demonstrate inclusion and equity in access to the research. STATISTICAL METHODS Any study containing quantitative data and statistical inference must include a description of statistical methods “with enough detail to enable a knowledgeable reader with access to the original data to judge its appropriateness for the study and to verify the reported results” (see ICMJE, https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/manuscript-preparation/preparing-for-submission.html#d). If such work is beyond the statistical training and experience of the authors, then the authors will need a statistical consultant—preferably included at the planning stages of the work, long before journal submission. PCCM may also carry out its own statistical review. Our purpose is to help the readership best understand the submitted work. For a general approach to presentation of numbers and information about effect size and precision of estimates, see the ICMJE guidance as well as details previously outlined in “Writing for PCCM: The 3,000-Word Structured Clinical Research Report” (2). Authors and readers should also take advantage of articles in PCCM that have been written with the aim of providing further details on the standard of reporting required for commonly used approaches in pediatric critical care research. To date, these articles have covered statistical problems that are commonly encountered in PCCM, such as causality in retrospective studies (3,4), use of propensity scores in association analyses (5), and the application of neural networks and machine learning models for mortality prediction (6,7). NOTES ON CERTAIN TYPES OF RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES For all types of articles, it is expected that authors will have checked compliance with the appropriate guidelines and checklists available at the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research website (EQUATOR network, see https://www.equator-network.org). Table 1 summarizes some of the requirements frequently seen in PCCM clinical research publications. TABLE 1. - Manuscript categories in PCCM. Research Publications Article Type Words References Figures/Tables Article Structure Clinical Investigation 3,000 40 5 Abstract (300 words: Objective, Design, Setting, Patients, Interventions, Measurements and Main Results, & Conclusions); Main text(Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) Systematic Review/ Meta-Analysis 3,000 75 5 Abstract (300 words: Objective, Data Sources, Study Selection, Data Extraction, Data Synthesis, & Conclusions); Main text (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) Brief Report 1,500 25 2 Structured using styles above Research Letter to the Editor 600 6 1 No abstract Correspondence to the Editor 600 6 1 No abstract Other Clinical Material Technical Note 1,500 25 2 Structured using styles above Concise Clinical Science Review 2,500 50 5 No abstract Concise Clinical Physiology Review 2,500 50 5 No abstract Case Conference Records 2,500 30 5 No abstract Perspective or Special Article 1,500 25 2 No abstract Creative Writing Narrative Essay 1,000 None None No abstract Poem 500 None None 150-word introductory paragraph Randomized Clinical Trials and Trial Data Analyses PCCM will evaluate articles describing the protocol for randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Information must include details of trial registration in a registry that is compliant with the World Health Organization (WHO) International Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, see https://www.who.int/clinical-trials-registry-platform/the-ictrp-search-portal). In the United States, the most used registry is the NLM ClinicalTrials.gov database (see https://www.clinicaltrials.gov). PCCM accepts submissions describing results of RCTs. The journal is not the usual place for such submission, with authors preferring a more mainstream general and/or pediatric journal for such reporting. Readers and authors should note that PCCM is committed to carrying out due diligence in assessing such work, and we adhere to the ICMJE guidance for evaluation (see https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/clinical-trial-registration.html). In particular, the original date of trial registration and date of human subject ethics committee approval must have occurred before the start of trial patient recruitment. A manuscript reporting trial results must include the original title and registration number of the RCT as it is found on the registry website. There cannot be post hoc revising of what a study was meant to be, e.g., a failed RCT does not become a “pilot” study. The results should follow the outline as registered (that readers can examine if interested) with adherence to a priori primary outcomes (as they appear in the trial registration document) as well as any secondary outcomes. The sample size calculation for original intention-to-treat should also be declared. The writing of the manuscript will also need to follow the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement using the checklists, flow diagrams, and extensions available on the website (see http://www.consort-statement.org). For example, RCTs that are stopped prematurely because of failed trial recruitment should include the details found in the CONSORT extension 14b. Alternatively, if a RCT has been modified due to the COVID-19 pandemic and other extenuating circumstances, then authors should follow the CONSERVE (CONSORT and SPIRIT extension for RCTs revised in extenuating circumstances) reporting guidelines (8). PCCM also accepts submissions of secondary analyses of RCT data. Such analyses are supplemental to the original RCT report and must be described as such. Some analyses may be prespecified in that the details can be found in the trial registration information. Whether it is helpful to call these analyses post hoc, I don’t know; it does not matter if readers understand what they are looking at and can cross reference with what is expected from the CONSORT 12b extension. However, my experience is that many PCCM submissions in this category are non-specified secondary analyses based on subgroups in the original RCT. As such, the reporting of these exploratory analyses should be considered hypothesis generating, with notes about inherent risk of bias, unless there are other independent studies with similar findings. Systematic Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Scoping Reviews The reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses should follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement (9). Checklists and other materials can be found on the EQUATOR website (see above), or the PRISMA website (see http://www.prisma-statement.org). PCCM advises all authors using this category of research to register their protocol in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, see https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/). The manuscript must describe any deviations from the registered protocol as well as the rationale for such deviations. Scoping reviews are exploratory pieces of work and writing-up should follow the format recently reviewed in PCCM (10). To qualify for consideration, authors should be able to make the argument that the content and reasoning of the scoping review is immediately relevant to the contemporary narrative portrayed in the pages of PCCM. That is, the topics or hypotheses have been discussed in the journal within the previous 3 years. Quality Improvement PCCM will consider submissions about quality improvement, providing that the format follows the outline reviewed in PCCM (11). It is important that the report goes beyond merely describing “the problem in detail (i.e., what is)”, but seeks to explain “what should be” and “how to get there” (11). OTHER CLINICAL MATERIAL Table 1 also lists articles that authors can submit to other sections of PCCM. We welcome submissions in each of the following categories. Technical Note These articles focus on the description of a new approach to a clinical procedure or novel application of an existing technology. Of note, the report must help readers with some consideration given to human subject and/or ethics committee approval when introducing a new clinical practice. This dimension not only includes regulatory aspects but also any training implications that authors consider important to share with the wider community of PCCM. The two examples of this material that have appeared in PCCM are: a report describing determination of death by neurologic criteria in children with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 (12); and an illustrated report about using real-time ultrasound guidance for umbilical venous cannulation in neonates with congenital heart disease in whom “blind” placement of central umbilical venous access has failed (13). Concise Clinical Science Review or Concise Clinical Physiology Review Such reviews should first be proposed to the Editor-in-Chief as potential journal content. Successful examples of the Concise Clinical Science Reviews are topical items that describe emerging pathophysiological insights in children with neurologic manifestations of COVID-19 (14), or host immunological responses in cases of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (15), or acute kidney injury after pediatric cardiac surgery (16). Examples of the Concise Physiology Reviews include an article about left heart decompression on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support and cardiopulmonary bypass (17) and another article about the cardiovascular system in severe sepsis using heart pressure-volume curve modeling (18). A key feature of all this material is the outstanding graphics that summarize and explain the mechanisms underlying the basic science or physiology. Case Conference Records This format tries to encapsulate the best aspects of a multidisciplinary, clinicopathological case conference (CPC), with great illustrations, and credible national or international expert discussants, and new/junior faculty as the lead presenter. The aim is to recreate for our global readership the experience of attending a state-of-the-art CPC. The format is about clinical decision making, differential diagnosis, and diagnostic investigations rather than an opportunity for multi-authored literature review or case reporting. To qualify for such submissions, the case must have been presented and discussed at a CPC in the originating center and parents and/or family must give consent for the case conference record to be published, including any illustrations. Investigations such as histopathology, radiology, echocardiography will need a subspecialist discussant. Authorship is limited to the contributing discussants. To date, PCCM has published one example of this material (19), and another case record will appear in the September 2022 issue. CREATIVE WRITING PCCM accepts two categories of creative writing. A narrative essay with up to 1,000 words and no references. A narrative poem with an introductory paragraph up to 150 words explaining the background to the reflective content. The PCCM Narratives section was started in April 2021 and the section leaders are accomplished creative writers. Prospective authors should look at two examples of their work as an idea of the type of essays that PCCM is seeking to publish (20,21). Look out for more developments in this area in the October 2022 issue. Finally, at PCCM we seek to attract submissions from all authors in our field. We aim to promote knowledge that accelerates change and influences the entire discipline (22). If our team of editors and PCCM/SCCM staff can help to improve your route to publication, we will. I encourage all prospective authors to be readers of PCCM so that you can best gauge contemporary thinking and know what is topical and relevant to the many practitioners in our domain of knowledge, SCCM and WFPICCS.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 14 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.