期刊名称：TRANSLATIONAL BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE
 期刊简介(About the journal)
投稿须知(Instructions to Authors)
编辑部信息(Editorial Board)
About the journal
ISSN: 1869-6716 (Print) 1613-9860 (Online)
TBM’s mission is to engage, inform, and catalyze dialogue about behavioral medicine among the research, practice, and policy communities. TBM aims to bring actionable science to practitioners across disciplines and to prompt debate on policy issues that surround implementation of evidence. TBM’s vision is to lead the translation of behavioral science findings to improve patient and population outcomes in a real-world context. It fills an important niche by supporting translation of research to clinical and public health practice, enhancing translation of practice and policy questions to new research, providing practical tools and decision supports for research, publishing primary research on research-to-practice translations, and fostering dialogue between research and practice communities.
Related subjects » Community Psychology - Health Promotion & Disease Prevention - Health Psychology & Behavioral Medicine - Medicine
Abstracted/Indexed in
Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition, Social Science Citation Index, Journal Citation Reports/Social Sciences Edition, PubMed (12 months embargo), PubMedCentral, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Current Contents / Social & Behavioral Sciences, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, OCLC, SCImago, Summon by ProQuest
Aims and scope
TBM’s mission is to engage, inform, and catalyze dialogue about behavioral medicine among the research, practice, and policy communities. TBM aims to bring actionable science to practitioners across disciplines and to prompt debate on policy issues that surround implementation of evidence. TBM’s vision is to lead the translation of behavioral science findings to improve patient and population outcomes in a real-world context. It fills an important niche by supporting translation of research to clinical and public health practice, enhancing translation of practice and policy questions to new research, providing practical tools and decision supports for research, publishing primary research on research-to-practice translations, and fostering dialogue between research and practice communities.
Instructions to Authors
Translational Behavioral Medicine: Practice, Policy, Research
Editorial Office
Questions concerning manuscript submission and other correspondence should be directed to the Editorial Office.
Please contact the editor-in-chief at tbmeditorial@gmail.com
Aims and Scope
TBM is an international peer-reviewed journal that offers continuous, online-first publication. TBM’s mission is to engage, inform, and catalyze dialogue between the research, practice, and policy communities about behavioral medicine. We aim to bring actionable science to practitioners and to prompt debate on policy issues that surround implementing the evidence. TBM’s vision is to lead the translation of behavioral science findings to improve patient and population outcomes. Our website is updated regularly with the newest empirical research, commentaries, news, and practical tools.
Types of Submissions Considered
Original Research
We publish original empirical articles, such as reports of randomized controlled trials, observational studies, or other basic and clinical investigations. Manuscripts should clearly state an objective or hypothesis, the research methods (including statistical methods), the essential features of any interventions, the outcome measures, and the results of the investigation. Original empirical studies on the effectiveness or implementation of interventions are especially welcomed. Manuscripts should also explicitly state the impact of the findings for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers. Original research papers should be no more than 25 double-spaced pages, including figures and tables. An example of an Original Research article published in TBM can be found here. Types of Papers
Manuscript Style Guide
General
With the exception of referencing, TBM follows the style guidelines of the American Psychological Association and it is suggested that contributors refer to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association for specific information http://www.apastyle.org/manual/index.aspx . The reference list and citations within the text should conform to AMA style.
Specific
• Typically, original research and systematic review manuscripts will not exceed 25 double-spaced pages (including captions, tables, and references).
• All pages should be numbered (including pages containing the title, author name and affiliation footnotes, abstract, acknowledgments, references, tables, and figure caption list), with a minimum one-inch margin on all sides.
• Because the journal uses a masked review process, for the initial review authors are requested to appropriately edit any text that obviously reveals their identity. Authors are instructed to remove this identifying information such as names and affiliations from the title page to be used as a blinded cover page along with the standard cover page prior to submission.
• Footnotes should be avoided.
• A structured abstract of no longer than 150 words is required, and should be divided into the following sections: Background, Purpose, Methods, Results, Conclusions. A list of 4-6 key words should be provided directly below the abstract for indexing purposes.
•Articles require an Implications section, which states the paper’s take-away for practice, policy, and research. Each Implication should consist of one sentence, written as a pithy, action-oriented recommendation, rather than a description or summary. Examples of Implications can be seen here:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13142-101-0006-y
• Figures and illustrations are to be numbered consecutively using Arabic numerals and referred to by number in the text. Figure captions are to be typed on a separate sheet of paper and must identify all elements found in the figure. Any previously published material should be identified by giving the original source at the end of the caption.
• Tables are to be numbered consecutively using Arabic numerals and referred to by number in the text. Each table should be typed on a separate page. Each table must include a heading that clearly and concisely explains the components of the table. Any previously published material should be identified by giving the original source at the end of the table heading. Table notes should be indicated by superscript lowercase letters (or asterisks for significance values and other statistical data) and included beneath the table body.
• Cite references in text using numbers in square brackets (e.g., “Behavioral Medicine spans many disciplines [1,2]….”). Examples of AMA style for the reference list are provided below, although authors are encouraged to consult the AMA style manual for further information. The reference list should only include works that are cited in the text and that have been published or accepted for publication. Personal communications and unpublished works should only be mentioned in the text. Do not use footnotes or endnotes as a substitute for a reference list.
• Whenever possible, statistical tests should include a reporting of effects sizes. Authors are encouraged to report the relevant statistical information for both significant and non-significant effects, and to follow the statistical reporting recommendations presented in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association.
• To enhance readability for a wide audience, the use of abbreviations and acronyms should be avoided throughout the manuscript. Exceptions include common statistical terminology (e.g., ANOVA) and other widely recognized acronyms.
• Generic names of drugs are preferred; if trade names are used, the generic name should be given at first mention.
• Acknowledgments of people, grants, funds, etc. should be placed in a separate section before the reference list. The names of funding organizations should be written in full.
Examples of AMA Reference Style
Book with one to six authors:
• Lugalla JB. Poverty, AIDS, and Street Children in East Africa. Lewiston, NY: Mellen Press; 2003.
Book with seven or more authors:
• Greg AM, Marshall KC, Peters NH, et al. Raising Large Families. San Francisco, CA: Brady Limited; 2006.
Edited book with one to six editors:
• Brunton LB, Lazo JS, Parker KL, eds. Goodman & Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. 11th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2005.
Edited book with seven or more editors:
• Brunton LB, Lazo JS, Parker KL, et al. eds. Goodman & Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. 11th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2005.
Chapter in edited book:
• O’Brien C. Drug addiction and drug abuse. In: Brunton LB, Lazo JS, Parker KL, eds. Goodman & Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. 11th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2005: 607-629.
Journal article with one to six authors:
• Salwachter AR, Freischlag JA, Sawyer RG, Sanfey HA. The training needs and priorities of male and female surgeons and their trainees. J Am Coll Surg. 2005; 201: 199-205.
Journal article with seven or more authors:
• Fukushima H, Cureoglu S, Schachern PO, et al. Cochlear changes in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Otolaryngology. 2005; 133: 100-106.
Website:
• National Cancer Institute. Underlying mortality data provided by national Center for Health Statistics. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/. Accessibility verified September 20, 2005.
Consensus Guidelines for Reporting
Where appropriate, authors are requested to follow reporting standards that apply to their particular study design to ensure that important information about the conduct of the study is available to reviewers and future readers. The following list describes the reporting standards that are expected to be followed for all relevant submissions.
CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials; www.consort-statement.org) – Authors of randomized trials are requested to follow CONSORT guidelines in reporting their manuscript and to include a CONSORT checklist as an appendix to their submission.
TREND (Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Non-randomized Designs; www.trend-statement.org) - Authors of non-randomized trials are requested to follow TREND guidelines in reporting their manuscript and to include a TREND checklist as an appendix to their submission.
STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology; www.strobe-statement.org) – Authors of manuscripts that report on observational studies (including cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies) are expected to follow STROBE guidelines and to include a STROBE checklist as an appendix to their submission.
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; www.prisma-statement.org) – Authors of systematic reviews and meta-analyses are requested to follow PRISMA reporting guidelines and to include a PRISMA checklist as an appendix to their submission.
Manuscript Submission Instructions
All manuscripts must be submitted via Editorial Manager (www.editorialmanager.com/tbm), an online submission and review system used to track manuscript progress from initial submission through the final publication decision. Authors will enter pertinent information into the system and submit the following files: (a) Two cover letter files, both containing any comments to the editor, one blinded (removal of names and identifying information) and one with the authors' full contact and institutional information (b) Manuscript file, containing the entire text of the article, including abstract, all text, references, footnotes, and appendices. Figures and tables may also be included in this file; (c) Figures and tables file(s), if they are being submitted separately.
If electronic supplementary material (ESM) is submitted, it will be published as received from the author in the online version only. ESM may consist of information that cannot be included in the printed version of the manuscript: e.g., animations, video clips, sound recordings, information that is more convenient in electronic form, sequences, spectral data, or additional tables or illustrations. If supplying any ESM, the text must make specific mention of the material as a citation, similar to that of figures and tables (e.g., “. . . as shown in Animation 3.").
Instructions for Manuscripts Accepted for Publication
Proofreading
The purpose of the proof is to check for typesetting errors and the completeness and accuracy of the text, tables, and figures. Substantial changes in content (e.g., new results, corrected values, title or authorship modifications) are not allowed without the approval of the Editor. After online publication, critical changes can only be made in the form of an Erratum, which must receive the Editor’s and the Publisher’s approval, and which will be hyperlinked to the article.
Copyright and Open Access:
Authors will receive an electronic notification to transfer copyright of the article to the Society of Behavioral Medicine via Springer. This will ensure the widest possible protection and dissemination of information under copyright laws. At the same time, authors will be offered an open-access option (Open Choice) whereby for a fee the article will be published with permanent open access. Open Choice articles do not require transfer of copyright as the copyright remains with the author. In opting for open access, authors agree to the Springer Open Choice license. Separate from Open Choice, in order to comply with NIH’s requirement that articles supported by federal funding be deposited with Pub Med Central, authors of such articles should not opt for open access (the Open Choice license). Rather, they should transfer copyright to SBM via Springer and deposit the accepted version of their article with Pub Med Central (http://www.nihms.nih.gov/) with request for a 12-month embargo from the date of online publication. Failure to submit the accepted version could result in disruption or discontinuation of the grant funding.
Online First
The article will be published online after receipt of the corrected proofs. This is the official first publication citable with the DOI. After release of the printed version, the paper can also be cited by issue and page numbers.
Appeals Process for Manuscript Submissions
If a manuscript is rejected and the author(s) believe that a pertinent point was overlooked or misunderstood by the reviewers, it is possible to appeal the editorial decision by contacting the Editor in charge of the submission. If an appeal to the Editor does not bring about a satisfactory resolution, further appeal can be directed to the Editor-in-Chief. If an appeal to the Editor-in-Chief does not result in a satisfactory resolution, then a final appeal can be addressed to the Chair of the Publications and Communications Council of the Society of Behavioral Medicine (http://www.sbm.org/committees/).
Reviewer Guidelines
Peer-Review Publication Policies
Contributions submitted to the journal that are selected for peer-review are typically sent to three reviewers chosen by the editor or associate editors, but considerations of timeliness may require the editor to act on the basis of less than three reviews. Authors are welcome to suggest potential reviewers; however, it is the editor's decision whether or not to honor such requests.
Selection of Reviewers
Reviewers are selected on the basis of many factors, including expertise, prior publications in the same topic area, and prior performance as a reviewer (including quality and timeliness). Invitations to review may contain confidential information, which should be treated as such.
Timeliness
Because we are committed to provide timely editorial decisions, potential reviewers are requested to respond promptly and those who accept invitations to review are requested to provide their comments within the agreed timeframe. If reviewers anticipate that they will not be able to meet the deadline, they are requested to inform the assigning editor so that alternative arrangements can be made.
Potential Conflicts of Interest
If a reviewer perceives that there may be a significant conflict of interest (financial or otherwise) for a particular manuscript that they are invited to review, they should either seek clarification with the assigning editor or decline the invitation.
Writing the Review
Reviewers are encouraged to provide the editors with the information on which a decision should be based, including specific comments that describe the arguments for and against publication. Although reviewers are welcome to recommend a particular course of action (accept, minor revisions, major revisions, reject) in their confidential comments to the editor, it is not recommended that such decisions be provided within the body of the review, as other reviewers may have opposing views.
The primary purpose of the review is to provide the editors with the information needed to reach a decision. The review should also instruct the authors on how they can strengthen their paper to the point where it may be acceptable. As far as possible, a negative review should explain to the authors the weaknesses of their manuscript, so that rejected authors can understand the basis for the decision and see in broad terms what needs to be done to improve the manuscript for publication elsewhere. This is secondary to the other functions, however, and reviewers are not obliged to provide detailed advice to authors of papers that they believe are not suitable for publication.
Confidential comments to the editor are welcome, but it is helpful if the main points are stated in the comments for transmission to the authors.
A more complete description of the review writing process is available in “Lovejoy, Revenson, and France (2011) Reviewing Manuscripts for Peer-Review Journals: A Primer for Novice and Seasoned Reviewers.”
Editing Referees' Reports
As a matter of policy, comments that were intended for the authors are transmitted; however, we reserve the right to edit a report in order to remove offensive language or to remove comments that reveal confidential information.
Requests to Re-review
We may return to reviewers for further advice, particularly in cases where there is disagreement among reviewers or where authors believe that reviewers have misunderstood points of fact. However, editors will not send a resubmitted paper back to the reviewers if the quality of the revisions can be adequately evaluated by the assigned editor without additional input.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts are reviewed with due respect for authors’ and reviewers' confidentiality. As a condition of agreeing to assess the manuscript, all reviewers undertake to keep submitted manuscripts and associated data confidential. If a reviewer seeks advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, he or she ensures that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.
Anonymity
We do not release reviewers' identities to authors. We strongly discourage reviewers from revealing their identities as they may be asked to comment on the criticisms of other reviewers and on further revisions of the manuscript; identified reviewers may find it more difficult to be objective in such circumstances. We also strongly discourage authors from attempting to determine reviewer identities or to confront their reviewers directly. Our policy is to neither confirm nor deny speculation about reviewers' identities and we encourage reviewers to adopt a similar policy.
Editorial Policy
The Role of the Editor
The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the entire content of the journal. An editorial advisory board, headed by the Chair of the Publications and Communications Council of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, is available to the Editor to help establish and maintain editorial policy.
Editorial Freedom
TBM adheres to the World Association of Medical Editors’ definition of editorial freedom. According to this definition, editorial freedom, or independence, is the concept that Editors-in-Chief have full authority over editorial content and timing of publication of that content. Journal owners should not interfere in the evaluation, selection, or editing of individual articles either directly or by creating an environment that strongly influences decisions. Editors should base decisions on the validity of the work and its importance to the journal’s readers. Editors should be free to express critical but responsible views about all aspects of journal content without fear of retribution, even if these views conflict with the commercial goals of the publisher. Editors have an obligation to support the concept of editorial freedom and to draw major transgressions of such freedom to the attention of the international medical, academic, and lay communities.
Confidentiality
TBM keeps all details about a submitted manuscript confidential. TBM will not comment to any outside organization about manuscripts submitted to the journal while they are under consideration or if they are rejected. The journal editors may comment publicly on published material, but their comments are restricted to the content itself and their evaluation of it.
Corrections, Retractions and "Expressions of Concern"
Editors must assume initially that authors are reporting work based on honest observations. Nevertheless, two types of difficulty may arise:
First, errors may be noted in published articles that require the publication of a correction or erratum. Corrections will appear on a numbered page, be listed in the Table of Contents, include the complete original citation, and link to the original article and vice versa if online. Errors should not be confused with inadequacies exposed by the emergence of new scientific information in the normal course of research, which requires no corrections or withdrawals.
The second type of difficulty is scientific fraud. If substantial doubt arises about the honesty or integrity of work, either submitted or published, it is the editor’s responsibility to bring the issue to the attention of the authors’ sponsoring institution. It is not the responsibility of the editor to conduct a full investigation or to make a determination; that responsibility lies with the institution where the work was done or with the funding agency. The editor should be promptly informed of the final decision, and if a fraudulent paper has been published, the journal must print a retraction. If this method of investigation does not result in a satisfactory conclusion, the editor may choose to conduct his or her own investigation. As an alternative to retraction, the editor may choose to publish an expression of concern about aspects of the conduct or integrity of the work.
Advertising
All advertisements in TBM must clearly identify the advertiser and the product or service being offered. Commercial advertisements will not be placed adjacent to any editorial matter that discusses the product being advertised, nor adjacent to any article reporting research on the advertised product. Further, advertisements must not refer to an article in the same issue in which they appear. In the case of drug advertisements, the full generic name of each active ingredient should appear. Finally, advertisements must have a different appearance from editorial material so there is no confusion between the two.
Advertisements may not be deceptive or misleading. Exaggerated or extravagantly worded copy will not be allowed. Advertisements will not be accepted if they appear to be indecent or offensive in either text or artwork, or contain negative content of a personal, racial, ethnic, sexual orientation, or religious character.
TBM reserves the right to refuse any advertisement for any reason.
Ethical Responsibilities of Authors
This journal is committed to upholding the integrity of the scientific record. As a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) the journal will follow the COPE guidelines on how to deal with potential acts of misconduct.
Authors should refrain from misrepresenting research results which could damage the trust in the journal, the professionalism of scientific authorship, and ultimately the entire scientific endeavour. Maintaining integrity of the research and its presentation can be achieved by following the rules of good scientific practice, which include:
- The manuscript has not been submitted to more than one journal for simultaneous consideration.
- The manuscript has not been published previously (partly or in full), unless the new work concerns an expansion of previous work (please provide transparency on the re-use of material to avoid the hint of text-recycling (“self-plagiarism”)).
- A single study is not split up into several parts to increase the quantity of submissions and submitted to various journals or to one journal over time (e.g. “salami-publishing”).
- No data have been fabricated or manipulated (including images) to support your conclusions
- No data, text, or theories by others are presented as if they were the author’s own (“plagiarism”). Proper acknowledgements to other works must be given (this includes material that is closely copied (near verbatim), summarized and/or paraphrased), quotation marks are used for verbatim copying of material, and permissions are secured for material that is copyrighted.
Important note: the journal may use software to screen for plagiarism.
- Consent to submit has been received explicitly from all co-authors, as well as from the responsible authorities - tacitly or explicitly - at the institute/organization where the work has been carried out, before the work is submitted.
- Authors whose names appear on the submission have contributed sufficiently to the scientific work and therefore share collective responsibility and accountability for the results.
In addition:
- Changes of authorship or in the order of authors are not accepted after acceptance of a manuscript.
- Requesting to add or delete authors at revision stage, proof stage, or after publication is a serious matter and may be considered when justifiably warranted. Justification for changes in authorship must be compelling and may be considered only after receipt of written approval from all authors and a convincing, detailed explanation about the role/deletion of the new/deleted author. In case of changes at revision stage, a letter must accompany the revised manuscript. In case of changes after acceptance or publication, the request and documentation must be sent via the Publisher to the Editor-in-Chief. In all cases, further documentation may be required to support your request. The decision on accepting the change rests with the Editor-in-Chief of the journal and may be turned down. Therefore authors are strongly advised to ensure the correct author group, corresponding author, and order of authors at submission.
- Upon request authors should be prepared to send relevant documentation or data in order to verify the validity of the results. This could be in the form of raw data, samples, records, etc.
If there is a suspicion of misconduct, the journal will carry out an investigation following the COPE guidelines. If, after investigation, the allegation seems to raise valid concerns, the accused author will be contacted and given an opportunity to address the issue. If misconduct has been established beyond reasonable doubt, this may result in the Editor-in-Chief’s implementation of the following measures, including, but not limited to:
- If the article is still under consideration, it may be rejected and returned to the author.
- If the article has already been published online, depending on the nature and severity of the infraction, either an erratum will be placed with the article or in severe cases complete retraction of the article will occur. The reason must be given in the published erratum or retraction note.
- The author’s institution may be informed.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
To ensure objectivity and transparency in research and to ensure that accepted principles of ethical and professional conduct have been followed, authors should include information regarding sources of funding, potential conflicts of interest (financial or non-financial), informed consent if the research involved human participants, and a statement on welfare of animals if the research involved animals.
Authors should include the following statements (if applicable) in a separate section entitled “Compliance with Ethical Standards” when submitting a paper:
- Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest
- Research involving Human Participants and/or Animals
- Informed consent
Please note that standards could vary slightly per journal dependent on their peer review policies (i.e. single or double blind peer review) as well as per journal subject discipline. Before submitting your article check the instructions following this section carefully.
The corresponding author should be prepared to collect documentation of compliance with ethical standards and send if requested during peer review or after publication.
The Editors reserve the right to reject manuscripts that do not comply with the above-mentioned guidelines. The author will be held responsible for false statements or failure to fulfill the above-mentioned guidelines.
Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest
Authors must disclose all relationships or interests that could influence or bias the work. Although an author may not feel there are conflicts, disclosure of relationships and interests affords a more transparent process, leading to an accurate and objective assessment of the work. Awareness of real or perceived conflicts of interests is a perspective to which the readers are entitled and is not meant to imply that a financial relationship with an organization that sponsored the research or compensation for consultancy work is inappropriate. Examples of potential conflicts of interests that are directly or indirectly related to the research may include but are not limited to the following:
- Research grants from funding agencies (please give the research funder and the grant number)
- Honoraria for speaking at symposia
- Financial support for attending symposia
- Financial support for educational programs
- Employment or consultation
- Support from a project sponsor
- Position on advisory board or board of directors or other type of management relationships
- Multiple affiliations
- Financial relationships, for example equity ownership or investment interest
- Intellectual property rights (e.g. patents, copyrights and royalties from such rights)
- Holdings of spouse and/or children that may have financial interest in the work
In addition, interests that go beyond financial interests and compensation (non-financial interests) that may be important to readers should be disclosed. These may include but are not limited to personal relationships or competing interests directly or indirectly tied to this research, or professional interests or personal beliefs that may influence your research.
The corresponding author collects the conflict of interest disclosure forms from all authors. ( Please note that each author should complete a disclosure form.) Examples of forms can be found
The corresponding author will include a summary statement on the title page that is separate from their manuscript, that reflects what is recorded in the potential conflict of interest disclosure form(s).
Please make sure to submit all Conflict of Interest disclosure forms together with the manuscript.
See below examples of disclosures:
Funding: This study was funded by X (grant number X).
Conflict of Interest: Author A has received research grants from Company A. Author B has received a speaker honorarium from Company X and owns stock in Company Y. Author C is a member of committee Z.
If no conflict exists, the authors should state:
Conflict of Interest: Author A, Author B, and Author C declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Research involving human participants and/or animals
1) Statement of human rights
When reporting studies that involve human participants, authors should include a statement that the studies have been approved by the appropriate institutional and/or national research ethics committee and have been performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration or comparable standards, the authors must explain the reasons for their approach, and demonstrate that the independent ethics committee or institutional review board explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study.
The following statements should be included in the text before the References section:
Ethical approval: “All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.”
For retrospective studies, please add the following sentence:
“For this type of study formal consent is not required.”
2) Statement on the welfare of animals
The welfare of animals used for research must be respected. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should indicate whether the international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals have been followed, and that the studies have been approved by a research ethics committee at the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted (where such a committee exists).
For studies with animals, the following statement should be included in in the text before the References section:
Ethical approval: “All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.”
If applicable (where such a committee exists): “All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted.”
If articles do not contain studies with human participants or animals by any of the authors, please select one of the following statements:
“This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.”
“This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.”
“This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.”
Informed consent
All individuals have individual rights that are not to be infringed. Individual participants in studies have, for example, the right to decide what happens to the (identifiable) personal data gathered, to what they have said during a study or an interview, as well as to any photograph that was taken. Hence it is important that all participants gave their informed consent in writing prior to inclusion in the study. Identifying details (names, dates of birth, identity numbers and other information) of the participants that were studied should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, and genetic profiles unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the participant (or parent or guardian if the participant is incapable) gave written informed consent for publication. Complete anonymity is difficult to achieve in some cases, and informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of participants is inadequate protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity, such as in genetic profiles, authors should provide assurance that alterations do not distort scientific meaning.
The following statement should be included:
Informed consent: “Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.”
If identifying information about participants is available in the article, the following statement should be included:
“Additional informed consent was obtained from all individual participants for whom identifying information is included in this article.”
Does Springer provide English language support?
Manuscripts that are accepted for publication will be checked by our copyeditors for spelling and formal style. This may not be sufficient if English is not your native language and substantial editing would be required. In that case, you may want to have your manuscript edited by a native speaker prior to submission. A clear and concise language will help editors and reviewers concentrate on the scientific content of your paper and thus smooth the peer review process.
The following editing service provides language editing for scientific articles in all areas Springer
publishes in:
Use of an editing service is neither a requirement nor a guarantee of acceptance for publication.
Please contact the editing service directly to make arrangements for editing and payment.
For Authors from China
文章在投稿前进行专业的语言润色将对作者的投稿进程有所帮助。作者可自愿选择使用Springer推荐的编辑服务，使用与否并不作为判断文章是否被录用的依据。提高文章的语言质量将有助于审稿人理解文章的内容，通过对学术内容的判断来决定文章的取舍，而不会因为语言问题导致直接退稿。作者需自行联系 Springer推荐的编辑服务公司，协商编辑事宜。
For Authors from Japan
ジャーナルに論文を投稿する前に、ネイティブ・スピーカーによる英文校閲を希望されている方には、Edanz社をご紹介しています。サービス内容、料金および申込方法など、日本語による詳しい説明はエダンズグループジャパン株式会社の下記サイトをご覧ください。
For Authors from Korea
영어 논문 투고에 앞서 원어민에게 영문 교정을 받고자 하시는 분들께 Edanz 회사를 소개해 드립니다. 서비스 내용, 가격 및
신청 방법 등에 대한 자세한 사항은 저희 Edanz Editing Global 웹사이트를 참조해 주시면 감사하겠습니다.
Editorial Board
Editor-in-Chief:
Suzanne M. Miller, PhD, Fox Chase Cancer Center/Temple University Health System, Philadelphia, PA
Associate Editors
Cheryl Albright, PhD, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI
Linda Baumann, PhD, RN, FAAN, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
Keith Bellizzi, PhD, MPH, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT
Deborah Bowen, PhD, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Joanne Buzaglo, PhD, Cancer Support Community, Philadelphia, PA
Bradley N. Collins, PhD, Temple University Health System, Philadelphia, PA
Joseph Conigliaro, MD, MPH, North Shore-LIJ Health System, Great Neck, NY
Wendy Demark-Wahnefried, PhD, RD, University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL
Elizabeth Eakin, PhD, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
Linda Fleisher, PhD, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Research Institute/Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
Konstadina Griva, PhD, National University of Singapore, Singapore
Michael J. Hall, MD, Fox Chase Cancer Center/Temple University Health System,Philadelphia, PA
Cheryl Holt, PhD, FAAHB, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
Jennifer L. Huberty, PhD, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ
Youngmee Kim, PhD, University of Miami, Miami, FL
Rebecca E. Lee, PhD, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ
Howard Leventhal, PhD, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
Laura Redwine, PhD, University of California, San Diego, CA
Pagona Roussi, PhD, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin, PhD, New York Physicians Against Cancer, New York, NY
Kenneth P. Tercyak, PhD, Georgetown University/Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC
Amy Yaroch, PhD, Gretchen Swanson Center for Nutrition, Omaha, NE
Advisory Board
Ellen Beckjord, PhD, UPMC Health Plan, Pittsburgh, PA
Kathryn Braun, DrPH, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI
Michael Diefenbach, PhD, North Shore-LIJ Health System, Manhasset, NY
Isaak Ino Halegoua, MD, St. Francis Medical Center, Trenton, NJ
Enrique Hernandez, MD, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA
Bradford W. Hesse, PhD, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD
Fred M. Jacobs, MD, JD, St. George's University, St. George's, Grenada
Robert M. Kaplan, PhD, University of California, Los Angeles, CA
Susmita Kashikar-Zuck, PhD, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH
Francis J. Keefe, PhD, Duke University, Durham, NC
Arthur Nezu, PhD, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA
Jeffrey Peppercorn MD, MPH, Harvard University/Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
Nancy Rigotti, MD, Harvard University, Boston, MA
William T. Riley, PhD, OBSSR, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
Barbara Rimer, DrPH, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
June Robinson, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
Linda Schwimmer, JD, New Jersey Health Care Quality Institute, Pennington, NJ
David Sheon, Whitecoat Strategies LLC, Washington, DC
Sally W. Vernon, PhD, University of Texas, Houston, TX
Redford Williams, MD, Duke University, Durham, NC
Krista Zodet, HealthWell Foundation, Gaithersburg, MD
Editorial Board
Pilvikki Absetz, PhD, University of Tampere, School of Health Sciences, Tampere, Finland;Joan Broderick, PhD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; Ross Brownson, PhD, Washington University, St. Louis, MO; John Burns, PhD, Rosalind Franklin University, North Chicago, IL; David E. Conroy, PhD, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA; Anne Dobmeyer, PhD, ABPP, Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury, Dayton, OH; Carolyn Y. Fang, PhD, Fox Chase Cancer Center/Temple University Health System, Philadelphia, PA; Jeff Goodie, PhD, ABPP, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD; Amy Gorin, PhD, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT; Nikki Hawkins, PhD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA; Carolyn Heckman, PhD, Fox Chase Cancer Center/Temple University Health System, Philadelphia, PA; Shawna V. Hudson, PhD, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ; Christine Hunter, PhD, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; Christopher L. Hunter, PhD, Department of Defense, Arlington, VA ; Paul Jacobsen, PhD, Moffit Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Robert N. Jamison, PhD, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA Diane K. King, PhD, University of Alaska, Anchorage, AK; Lisa Klesges, PhD, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN; Jean Kristeller, PhD, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN; Lisa M. Lewis, PhD, RN, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Mark Lumley, PhD, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; Patrick McGrath, PhD, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; Ben F. Miller, PsyD, University of Colorado, Denver, CO; Stephen Morley, PhD, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; Daniel Mullin, PsyD, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA; Karen M. Mustian, PhD, MPH, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY; Claudio Nigg, PhD, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI Frank Penedo, PhD, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Andrew Pomerantz, MD, Veteran Administration, White River Junction, VT; Sherry Pomeroy, PhD, RN, University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY; Laura Porter, PhD, Duke University, Durham, NC; Hollie Raynor, PhD, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN; Geoffrey Setswe, PhD, Human Sciences Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa; Johan Vlaeyen, PhD, University of Leuven, Leuven, Netherlands; Barbara Walker, PhD, University of Colorado, Denver, CO; Kuang-Yi Wen, PhD, Fox Chase Cancer Center/Temple University Health System, Philadelphia, PA; David A. Williams, PhD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Loriena Yancura, PhD, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI
Managing Editor: Lindsay Bullock, Society of Behavioral Medicine, Milwaukee, WI
Founding Editor: Bonnie Spring, PhD, ABPP, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
|
