Thank You For Your Interest in

Thank you for your interest in
Translational Lung Cancer Research (TLCR, Transl Lung Cancer Res, Print

ISSN 2218-6751; Online ISSN 2226-4477). TLCR adheres to the Recommendations for the Conduct,
Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals, issued by the International
Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and the Cope of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for
Journal Editors, issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Please refer to the following
guidelines to help you prepare your manuscript. Feel free to contact the editorial office by email
(editor@tlcr.org) should you have any questions. To ensure a swift peer review and publication process,
manuscripts that do not adhere to the following instructions will be returned to the corresponding author
for technical revision at preliminary review. The author instruction is updated on November 10, 2022.
1. ABOUT THE JOURNAL
Translational Lung Cancer Research (TLCR, Transl Lung Cancer Res, Print ISSN 2218-6751; Online
ISSN 2226-4477; tlcr.amegroups.com) is an in international, Open Access, peer-reviewed journal, aiming
at promoting developments in the medical field. The mission of TLCR is to provide high-quality evidence
to guide clinical decision making for better global health outcomes.
The scope of TLCR includes: Internal Medicine (Immunology, Pulmonology, Cardiology, Neurology, etc.),
Surgery (Heart & Thoracic Surgery, Orthopedics etc.), Oncology (Thyroid Cancer, Colorectal Cancer,
Palliative Care etc.), Gynecology & Obstetrics, Pediatrics, Otorhinolaryngology (Ophthalmology etc.),
Medical Tests and Health Care (Radiology, Pathology, Laboratory Medicine, Nursing, Alternative
Medicine etc.), Health Policy & Methodology Science (Public Health, Epidemiology, Medical Ethics etc.),
and Biomedical Science & Technology (Pharmacology, Biomedical Engineering, Bibliometrics etc.).
TLCR welcomes both invited and freely submitted articles. Besides quarterly publications, articles in
defined areas will be collected and published in themed collections. A rigorous review process is
undertaken, supervised by a strong editorial board, which assures the high quality of the journal’s content.
For more about our journal, please see: https://tlcr.amegroups.com/about
2. MANUSCRIPT CATEGORIES
Tables
Wor Structur
Manuscript Key Referenc and
d Abstract Main text e
categories words e Figure
limit template
s
Structured Structured as
with Introduction,
Background, Methods,
No Methods, Results, Downloa
Original Article 3~5 No limit No limit
limit Results, and Discussion and d
Conclusions; Conclusions;
200~350 Require a
words highlight box
Structured as
Introduction,
Unstructured Main Body
6,00 , except for (require
Downloa
Review Article 0 some certain 3~5 discussing on No limit No limit
d
max. types; 200- strengths and
350 words limitations of the
review), and
Conclusions
-Systematic 6,00 Structured 3~5 Structured as No limit No limit Downloa
Review 0 with Introduction, d
max. Background, Methods,
Methods, Results,
Results, and Discussion and
200~350 Require a
words highlight box
Structured Structured as
with Introduction,
Background, Methods,
6,00
Methods, Results, Downloa
-Scoping Review 0 3~5 No limit No limit
Results, and Discussion and d
max.
200~350 Require a
words highlight box
Structured
with
Background
and
Objective, Structured as
6,00 Methods, Introduction,
-Narrative/ Downloa
0 Key Content 3~5 Methods, Main No limit No limit
Literature Review d
max. and Body and
Findings, Conclusions.
and
Conclusions;
200~350
words
Structured as
6,00 Unstructured
-Clinical Practice Introduction, Downloa
0 ; 200~350 3~5 No limit No limit
Review Main Body and d
max. words
Conclusions.
3,00 Unstructured
-Mini-review 0 ; 200~350 3~5 Unstructured 30 max. 3 max. NA
max. words
Introduction,
Structured Methods, Main
with Body (Contain
Background, clear
Clinical Practice No Methods, recommendation Downloa
3~5 No limit No limit
Guideline limit Results, and s and d
Conclusions; discussions) and
200~350 Conclusions;
words Require a
highlight box
Introduction,
Structured Methods, Main
with Body (Contain
Background, clear
No Methods, recommendation Downloa
Expert Consensus 3~5 No limit No limit
limit Results, and s and d
Conclusions; discussions) and
200~350 Conclusions;
words Require a
highlight box
Case Series 2,50 Structured 3~5 Introduction, 20 max. 8 max. Downloa
0 with Case d
max. Background, Presentation,
Case Discussion, and
Description,
and Conclusions;
Conclusions; Require a
200~350 highlight box
words
Structured
with Introduction,
Background, Case
2,50 Case Presentation,
Downloa
Case Report 0 Description, 3~5 Discussion, and 20 max. 8 max.
d
max. and Conclusions;
Conclusions; Require a
200~350 highlight box
words
5,50 Unstructured
Surgical
0 ; 200~350 3~5 Unstructured No limit No limit NA
Technique
max. words
2,50 Unstructured
Brief Reports 0 ; 200~350 3~5 Unstructured 35 max. 8 max. NA
max. words
Not
Images in Clinical No Not
Not required require Unstructured 8 max. NA
Medicine limit allowed
d
Structured
as
Background,
Structured as
Methods,
No Introduction, Downloa
Study Protocol Discussion, 3~5 No limit No limit
limit Methods, and d
and
Discussion.
Registration;
200~350
words
2,50
Editorial 0 Not required 3~5 Unstructured 25 max. 2 max. NA
max.
2,50
Editorial
0 Not required 3~5 Unstructured 25 max. 2 max. NA
Commentary
max.
1,00 Not
Letter to the
0 Not required require Unstructured 10 max. 1 max. NA
Editor
max. d
2.1 Original Article
Original articles are articles that report the results of original research investigations. Original articles must
have originality and clinical impact.
Word limit: there is no fixed word limit for research articles, but authors must use the most concise
language possible, as well as succinct, structured sentences. The word count for the main text (excluding
the abstract, references, tables, boxes, or figures) should be provided when the manuscript is submitted.
Abstract: 200~350 words structured with the subheadings Background, Methods, Results, and
Conclusions.
Key words: 3~5.
Main Text: Original articles should organize the main text in Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion
and Conclusions. In addition, original articles are required to contain a box that highlights the key findings
and potential impacts. See the “3.3 Main Text” section for details.
References: No limit.
Figures/Tables: No limit, but 10 figures are deemed sufficient.
Author Contributions: Original articles should include a section describing the contribution made by each
author to the manuscript. See the “3.1.1 Author Contributions” sections for details.
Data Sharing Statement: If a submitted article includes any data that are not publicly available, the
authors are required to fill in a data-sharing statement form, which should be submitted along with their
manuscript. If the article is accepted for publication, the Data Availability Statement (form) will be
published online alongside the article. See the “3.5.2 Data Sharing Statement” section for details.
Ethical Statement: When a manuscript documents any experiment(s) involving human subjects or
animals, the authors must indicate an ethical statement both in the methods section and the footnote. See
the “3.5.5 Ethical Statement” section for details.
Please note that only systematic review with meta-analysis will be categorized as Original Article
while systematic review without meta-analysis will be categorized as Review Article. Besides, for
articles that use data from patients, when the number of patients in the article is ≤3, the article will
be classified as Case Report; when the number of patients in the article is between 4 and 9, the
article will be classified as Case Series; when the number of patients in the article is ≥10 and the
article contain statistical analysis, the article will be classified as Original Article (the article
format should refer to Original Article).
2.1.1 Reporting Checklist
Apart from following the general format as indicated above, Original Articles should be prepared
according to the EQUATOR research reporting guidelines, as some commonly used guidelines listed
below, and each submission should include a checklist (a reformatted version has been created for the
journal) as a supplementary material. The relevant page/line and section/paragraph number in the
manuscript should be stated for each item in the checklist. A statement should be included at the end of
the “Introduction” to indicate which reporting checklist was followed (e.g., “We present the following
article/case in accordance with the CONSORT reporting checklist.”). The manuscript should also include
a Reporting Checklist statement in the footnote (see the “3.5 Footnote”). Failure to do so will result in the
manuscript being returned to the authors for amendment. Please note that the application of a
checklist is aimed for transparent and clear reporting to allow better critical appraisal of the
manuscript. The final format of the manuscript should follow the author instruction requirements.
Download Checklist
Study Type Guideline* (reformatted for the
journal)
CONSORT (CONsolidated Standards Of
Randomized controlled trial CONSORT Checklist
Reporting Trials)
TREND (Transparent Reporting of
Nonrandomized design TREND Checklist
Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs)
Observational studies in STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of
STROBE Checklist
Epidemiology Observational studies in Epidemiology)
STARD (STAndards for Reporting of
Diagnostic accuracy study STARD Checklist
Diagnostic Accuracy Studies)
Systematic review or meta- PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for
PRISMA Checklist
analysis Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses)
Animal research ARRIVE Guidelines ARRIVE Checklist
Prediction Model
Development and TRIPOD Guidelines TRIPOD Checklist
Validation
*Authors may refer to the Extensions to the CONSORT Statement based on the specific study type; if a
particular study type has not been included in the above list, authors can find more reporting guidelines
on EQUATOR Network (https://www.equator-network.org/home/) and should indicate upon submission
which guideline has been followed and provide related reporting checklist if available.
2.1.2 Selection and Description of Participants
In study articles, the process of selection for observational or experimental subjects (healthy individuals or
patients, including controls) should be clearly set out in the methods section. Any eligibility or exclusion
criteria should be provided, along with a description of the population from which the subjects were
sourced. Ideally, representative populations should be included in all study types and characteristics
(such as age, sex, or ethnicity) of the study population should be described. Terms relating to sex (when
reporting biological factors) and gender (identity, psychosocial or cultural factors) should be used
correctly, and the sex and/or gender of the human participants, or the sex of animals or cells, should be
reported, except where this is not appropriate. The methods used to classify sex and gender should also
be described, where relevant. If the study focused on a specific population (e.g., only females), unless the
reason is obvious (e.g., cervical cancer), the authors should explain their reasoning for this. For race and
ethnicity, authors should describe how these were determined, and their relevance to the study should be
explained. Study subjects should be described in the most neutral, exact, and respectful language
possible. Any language that might cause the stigmatization of subjects must be avoided.
2.1.3 Research Resource Identifiers (RRID)
TLCR is pleased to be a part of the Research Resource Identification Initiative, a project aimed at
clearly identifying key research resources, aka materials, used in the course of scientific experiments.
These include antibodies, cell lines, model organisms, and software tools. To help authors quickly find the
correct identifiers for their materials there is a single web site (https://scicrunch.org/resources) where all
resource types can be found and a 'cite this' button next to each resource that contains proper citation
text that should be included in the methods section of the manuscript. Several examples of properly
formatted methods sections with RRIDs can be found below:
 Antibodies: "antibody against ERK1 (Abgent Cat# AP7251E, RRID:AB_2140114)."

 Cell Lines: "we used the following cell lines: RRID: CVCL_1H60,..."
 Genetically modified organisms: "Fgf9Eks/Fgf9+ mice (RRID:MGI_3840442)..."
 Software tools: "...terminals were mapped (Neurolucida, v10, RRID:SCR_001775)."
2.2 Review Article

Review articles are articles that identify, synthesize and summarize existing evidence and information on
a specific topic. Review articles should present a timely, comprehensive analysis of a specific topic. We
welcome the submission of proposals for review articles for initial consideration.
Word limit: 6,000 words max, including an abstract but excluding references, tables, and figures.
Abstract: 200~350 words. Unstructured, except for certain some certain types of reviews, e.g., systematic
reviews without meta-analysis, scoping reviews, and narrative reviews.
Key words: 3~5.
Main Text: Structured as Introduction, Main Body, and Conclusions. Some reviews require a Methods
section, such as systematic reviews, scoping reviews and narrative/ literature reviews. It is important to
note that we require that the main body of a review also contain a discussion on main strengths and
limitations to inform the reader of a more objective understanding of the information in the review. In
addition, systematic reviews and scoping reviews are required to contain a box that highlights the key
findings and potential impacts. See the “3.3 Main Text” section for details.
References: No limit, except for mini-reviews.
Figures/Tables: No limit, except for mini-reviews.
Author Contributions: Review articles should include a section describing the contribution made by each
Ethical Statement: When a review documents any image(s) or video(s) involving human subjects or
Besides the conventional review article, there are some typical classifications of review article listed
below, which may entail the conformation with a reporting guideline.
2.2.1 Systematic Reviews without Meta-analysis
We strongly welcome the submission of systematic reviews. A systematic review consists of searching,
screening, and selecting all eligible literature following predetermined eligibility criteria, and appraising
and synthesizing the literature to answer a specific research question. A systematic review requires a
rigorous and systematic approach to reduce bias and produce more trusted evidence to facilitate decision
making (https://www.cochranelibrary.com/about/about-cochrane-reviews). Systematic reviews without
meta-analysis are categorized as Review Article.
In addition to following the general format of a review article described above, this type of reviews should
also adhere to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and
each submission should include the PRISMA Checklist (a reformatted version has been created for the
journal can be downloaded here) as a supplementary material. The relevant page/line and
section/paragraph number in the manuscript should be stated for each item in the checklist. A statement
“We present the following article in accordance with the PRISMA reporting checklist” should be included
at the end of the “Introduction”. The manuscript should also include a Reporting Checklist statement in the
footnote (see the “3.5 Footnote” section). Failure to do so will result in the manuscript being returned to
the authors for amendment. Please note that the application of a checklist is aimed for transparent
and clear reporting to allow critical appraisal of the manuscript. The final format of the manuscript
should follow the author instruction requirements.
Abstract: Structured with Background, Methods, Results, and Conclusions.
Main Text: Arranged as Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions. Systematic reviews
are required to contain a box that highlights the key findings and potential impacts. See the “3.3 Main
Text” section for details.
2.2.2 Scoping Review
We strongly welcome the submission of scoping reviews. Similar to systematic review, a scoping review
also contains systematic literature searching, screening and selecting. However, it differs in not requiring
a quality appraisal of the included literature. The report of a scoping review should follow PRISMA-ScR
(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews)
Checklist and each submission should include the PRISMA-ScR Checklist (can be downloaded here) as
a supplementary material. The relevant page/line and section/paragraph number in the manuscript should
be stated for each item in the checklist. A statement “We present the following article in accordance with
the PRISMA-ScR reporting checklist” should be included at the end of the “Introduction”. The manuscript
should also include a Reporting Checklist statement in the footnote (see the “Footnote” section). Failure
to do so will result in the manuscript being returned to the authors for amendment. Please note that the
application of a checklist is aimed for transparent and clear reporting to allow critical appraisal of
the manuscript. The final format of the manuscript should follow the author instruction
requirements.
Abstract: Structured with Background, Methods, Results, and Conclusions.
Main Text: Arranged as Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions. Scoping reviews
are required to contain a box that highlights the key findings and potential impacts. See the “3.3 Main
2.2.3 Narrative Review (Also Called Literature Review)
We strongly welcome the submission of narrative reviews, although our editors may still consider
traditional reviews for publication. A narrative review aims to provide readers with a cutting-edge,
scholarly, evolving developments and evidence-based overview on a clinical or mechanistic subject by
searching, selecting, compiling, and summarizing the available literature. Through a narrative review,
readers could gain a more comprehensive and enlightening knowledge on a particular field. A narrative
review is less methodologically demanding than a systematic review, as it does not require a search of all
literature in a field, nor does it necessarily require a rigorous appraisal on the included literature.
Abstract: Structured with
 Background and Objective: describe relevant background, reasons for conducting this review
and primary objectives of this review.
 Methods: briefly describe the search strategy, including databases, time frame, and language
considerations.
 Key Content and Findings: describe what the literature review will mainly contain and any key
findings.
 Conclusions: describe the main conclusions and how the review may potentially impact future
researches, clinical practice and policy making.
Main Text: Arranged as Introduction, Methods, Main Body and Conclusions. The Methods section should
include a completed table as follows:
Table X. The search strategy summary
Items Specification
Date of Search (specified to date, month and year)
Databases and other sources searched
Search terms used (including MeSH and free text search terms and filters)
Note: please use an independent supplement table to present detailed search
strategy of one database as an example
Timeframe
Inclusion and exclusion criteria (study type, language restrictions etc.)
Selection process (who conducted the selection, whether it was conducted

independently, how consensus was obtained, etc.)
Any additional considerations, if applicable
*Note: please note that a narrative review is less methodologically demanding than a systematic review,
as it does not require a search of all literature in a field. Therefore, the search strategy summary of a
narrative review is mainly used for more transparent reporting.
In addition to following the general format of a review article described above, narrative reviews should
also adhere to the narrative review checklist (available here) and each submission should include the
Checklist as a supplementary material. The relevant page/line and section/paragraph number in the
manuscript should be stated for each item in the checklist. A statement “We present the following article
in accordance with the narrative review reporting checklist” should be included at the end of the
“Introduction”. The manuscript should also include a Reporting Checklist statement in the footnote (see
the “3.5 Footnote” section). Failure to do so will result in the manuscript being returned to the authors for
amendment. Please note that the application of a checklist is aimed for transparent and clear
reporting to allow critical appraisal of the manuscript. The final format of the manuscript should
follow the author instruction requirements.
2.2.4 Clinical Practice Review
A clinical practice review is often shorter than a systematic review, a scoping review or a narrative review.
It mainly provides a summary of clinical issues involving clinical manifestations, diagnosis, treatment,
prognosis, etc. It often requires perspective and expert opinion along with evidence-based review, and
may include early or unpublished observations. For example, it can be a detailed step-by-step and
empirical summary of certain surgical techniques or approaches; it can be a comparative summary of
several treatment approaches; it can also be a review of a controversial clinical issue to sort out the
controversy and the possible best approach, and so forth.
Abstract: Unstructured within 200~350 words.
Main Text: Structured with Introduction, Main Body, and Conclusions.
2.2.5 Mini-review
A mini-review often provides a fairly brief summary of experience, literature, techniques, or other issues.
Though a mini-review is far less comprehensive than a systematic review, scoping review, narrative
review, or clinical practice review, it is concise with minimal text to target valuable topics or emerging
topics that have not yet been extensively researched.
Word limit: 3,000 words max, excluding an abstract, references, tables and figures.
Abstract: Unstructured within 200~350 words.
Main Text: Unstructured.
References: 30 max.
Figures/Tables: 3 max.
2.3 Clinical Practice Guideline and Expert Consensus
2.3.1 Clinical Practice Guideline
The clinical practice guidelines are recommendations that provide the optimum care for patients based on
evidence from systematic reviews and a balance of the benefits and harms of different interventions.
Ideally, a Clinical Practice Guideline should follow a methodical rigorous approach to its development,
including, protocol drafting and registration (e.g., http://www.guidelines-registry.org), clear screening and
identification of clinical concerns, systematic search of existing similar guidelines, systematic searching,
evaluating and grading of evidence, and management of conflicts of interest of participants, and strict
consensus methods for forming recommendations, etc.
Word limit: There is no fixed word limit for clinical practice guidelines but authors must use the most
concise language possible, as well as succinct, structured sentences. The word count for the main text
(excluding the abstract, references, tables, boxes, or figures) should be provided when the manuscript is
submitted.
Conclusions.
Key words: 3~5.
Main Text: Clinical practice guidelines should organize the main text in Introduction, Methods, Main Body
(Contain clear recommendations and discussions) and Conclusions. In addition, clinical practice
guidelines are required to contain a box that highlights the key recommendations. See the “3.3 Main
Figures/Tables: No limit.
Author Contributions: Clinical practice guidelines should include a section describing the contribution
made by each author to the manuscript. See the “3.1.1 Author Contributions” sections for details.
In addition to following the general format of a clinical practice guideline described above, this type of
article should also adhere to the RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) and each
submission should include the RIGHT Checklist (a reformatted version has been created for the journal
can be downloaded here) as a supplementary material. The relevant page/line and section/paragraph
number in the manuscript should be stated for each item in the checklist. A statement “We present the
following article in accordance with the RIGHT reporting checklist” should be included at the end of the
“Introduction”. The manuscript should also include a Reporting Checklist statement in the footnote (see
the “Footnote” section). Failure to do so will result in the manuscript being returned to the authors for
amendment. Please note that the application of a checklist is aimed for transparent and clear
reporting to allow critical appraisal of the manuscript. The final format of the manuscript should
follow the author instruction requirements.
2.3.2 Expert Consensus
Expert consensus is a way to generate key clinical questions, determine the best evidence, and form
recommendations. When expert consensus appears as a category of articles, it is similar to clinical
practice guidelines in that it requires expert assessment and comprehensive judgment of the quality and
credibility of the evidence.
Expert consensus differs from clinical practice guidelines in that, it is not necessarily developed by
professional societies and associations, as clinical guidelines are, but also by experts with certain
influence in a particular field; it tends to be developed in a shorter period of time; the development
process tends to be less scientifically rigorous than that of clinical practice guidelines; there may or may
not be a grading of the evidence; and the quality of the evidence included is often not as high as in clinical
practice guidelines etc.
Word limit: There is no fixed word limit for expert consensus but authors must use the most concise
language possible, as well as succinct, structured sentences. The word count for the main text (excluding
the abstract, references, tables, boxes, or figures) should be provided when the manuscript is submitted.
Conclusions.
Key words: 3~5.
Main Text: Expert consensus should organize the main text in Introduction, Methods, Main Body (Contain
clear recommendations and discussions) and Conclusions. In addition, an expert consensus is required to
contain a box that highlights the key recommendations. See the “3.3 Main Text” section for details.
Figures/Tables: No limit.
Author Contributions: Expert consensus should include a section describing the contribution made by
each author to the manuscript. See the “3.1.1 Author Contributions” sections for details.
2.4 Case Series
Case Series is article reporting observations of diseases, clinical findings, or novel/unique treatment
outcomes that are relevant to several participants/patients in related fields. Only cases of exceptional
interest and novelty are considered. Of note, only when the number of patients in the article is between 4
and 9, the article will be classified as Case Series. Otherwise, the article will be classified as Case Report
(the number of patients is≤3) or Original Article (when the number of patients is ≥10 and the article
contain statistical analysis).
Word limit: 2,500 words max. (excluding references, tables, and figures)
Abstract: 200~350 words max. Structured with:
 Background: state what is known and unknown; why the case report is unique and what it
adds to existing literature.
 Case Description: describe the patient’s demographic details and main history, the main
diagnosis, interventions, outcomes and follow-ups.
 Conclusions: summarize the main take-away lesson, clinical impact and potential
implications.
Key words: 3~5.
Main text: The text should be arranged as Introduction, Case Presentation, Discussion, and Conclusions.
In addition, case report and case series are required to contain a box that highlights the key findings and
potential impacts. See the “3.3 Main Text” section for details.
References: 20 max.
Figures/tables: 8 max. (combined)
Author Contribution: Case series should include a section describing the contribution made by each
Ethical Statement: Case reports and case series should include an ethical statement indicating whether
written consent has been obtained from the subject (or their parent/guardian). See the “3.5.5 Ethical
Statement” section for details.
Apart from following the general format as indicated above, authors should prepare the case series
according to the AME Case Series (adapted from CARE and PROCESS checklist) and their submission
should include a reporting checklist (a reformatted version has been made for the journal) as a
supplementary material. The relevant page/line and section/paragraph number in the manuscript should
be stated for each item in the checklist. A statement like “We present the following case in accordance
with the AME Case Series reporting checklist” should be included at the end of the “Introduction”. The
manuscript should also include a Reporting Checklist statement in the footnote (see the “3.5 Footnote”).
Failure to do so will result in the manuscript being returned to the authors for their amendment. Please
note that the application of a checklist is aimed for transparent and clear reporting to allow critical
appraisal of the manuscript. The final format of the manuscript should follow the author
instruction requirements.
Of note, for case series in surgery, authors are recommended to prepare the manuscript according to the
PROCESS Checklist.
The AME Case Series and PROCESS checklists can be downloaded here: AME Case
Series, PROCESS.
2.5 Case Report
Case report is article reporting observations of diseases, clinical findings, or novel/unique treatment
outcomes that are relevant to one or several participants/patients in related fields. Only cases of
exceptional interest and novelty are considered. Of note, when the number of patients in the article is ≤3,
the article will be classified as Case Report. Otherwise, the manuscript will be classified as other
categories, e.g., when the number of patients in the article is between 4 and 9, the article will be classified
as Case Series; when the number of patients in the article is ≥10 and the article contain statistical
analysis, the article will be classified as Original Article (the article format should refer to Original Article).
Word limit: 2,500 words max. (excluding references, tables, and figures)
Abstract: 200~350 words max. Structured with:
 Background: state what is known and unknown; why the case report is unique and what it
adds to existing literature.
 Case Description: describe the patient’s demographic details and main history, the main
diagnosis, interventions, outcomes and follow-ups.
 Conclusions: summarize the main take-away lesson, clinical impact and potential
implications.
Key words: 3~5.
Main text: The text should be arranged as Introduction, Case Presentation, Discussion, and Conclusions.
In addition, case report and case series are required to contain a box that highlights the key findings and
potential impacts. See the “3.3 Main Text” section for details.
References: 20 max.
Figures/tables: 8 max. (combined)
Author Contribution: Case report and case series should include a section describing the contribution
made by each author to the manuscript. See the “3.1.1 Author Contributions” sections for details.
Ethical Statement: Case reports and case series should include an ethical statement indicating whether
Apart from following the general format as indicated above, authors should prepare the case reports
according to the CARE Guidelines and their submission should include a reporting checklist (a
reformatted version has been made for the journal) as a supplementary material. The relevant page/line
and section/paragraph number in the manuscript should be stated for each item in the checklist. A
statement like “We present the following case in accordance with the CARE reporting checklist” should be
included at the end of the “Introduction”. The manuscript should also include a Reporting Checklist
statement in the footnote (see the “3.5 Footnote”). Failure to do so will result in the manuscript being
returned to the authors for their amendment. Please note that the application of a checklist is aimed
for transparent and clear reporting to allow critical appraisal of the manuscript. The final format of
the manuscript should follow the author instruction requirements.
The reformatted CARE checklist can be downloaded here: CARE.
2.6 Surgical technique
This section is designed to be presented as a detailed "how to" multimedia manual for operative
procedures. The manuscript on surgical techniques should include detailed descriptions of the procedures
in a step-by-step format. Expert opinions regarding possible pitfalls and the comparison of the described
procedure with other methods are encouraged.
Word limit: 5500 words max. (excluding references, tables, video and figures)
Abstract: Unstructured, 200~350 words max. No abbreviations.
Key words: 3~5.
Main text: Unstructured but the text should include at least contain three aspects–Introduction, Surgical
techniques, and Comments.
Videos: Surgical videos are encouraged for this section. We will accept digital files in MP4, Flash video
(.flv), MPEG (MPEG video file), mov, avi, and wmv formats or videos on CD/DVD. Check the video for
more details. The corresponding author must confirm in the Copyright Transfer Agreement, that he/she
has received a signed release form from each patient recorded on the submitted video. Patients must not
be identifiable in these videos. If required, additional video editing by the authors, including the insertion
of a voice-over, may also be requested by the editorial office.
Ethical Statement: Surgical technique should include an ethical statement indicating whether written
consent has been obtained from the subject (or their parent/guardian). See the “3.5.5 Ethical Statement”
section for details.
2.7 Brief Reports
Manuscripts containing pertinent and interesting observations concerning quantitative imaging research in
medicine and surgery and reports on new observations or studies that do not warrant publication as a full
research article will be considered for the Brief Reports. These submissions will undergo full peer review.
Word limit: 2,500 words max. (excluding references, tables and figures)
Abstract: 200~350 words maximum, unstructured (no use of sub-headers).
Key words: 3~5.
Main text: unstructured.
References: Up to 35.
Figures/tables: Up to 8 in total.
Ethical Statement: Brief Reports should include an ethical statement indicating whether written consent
has been obtained from the subject (or their parent/guardian). See the “3.5.5 Ethical Statement” section
for details.
Example: https://amj.amegroups.com/article/view/5475/html
2.8 Images in Clinical Medicine
Images in Clinical Medicine are classic images of common medical conditions. Images are an important
part of much of what we do and learn in medicine. This feature is intended to capture the sense of visual
discovery and variety that physicians experience. Images in Clinical Medicine are not intended as a
vehicle for case reports. Original, high quality images are considered for publication (subject to editing
and abridgment) provided they do not contain material that has been submitted or published elsewhere.
Word Limit: No limit.
Key words: Not required.
Abstract: Not required.
References: Not allowed.
Figures/tables: Up to 8 in total.
Ethical Statement: Images in Clinical Medicine should include an ethical statement indicating whether
Examples:
https://amj.amegroups.com/article/view/5696/html
2.9 Study Protocol

Study Protocol report planned or ongoing clinical trials, describing the rationale, criteria, and treatment
plan(s), and anticipating the results. Since this type of article discusses ongoing or planned trials,
manuscripts reporting work that has already been carried out will not be considered, nor will conclusive
data regarding outcomes be included.
The format of a Study Protocol may follow a similar format to an Original Article.
Word limit: No limit.
Title: should contain the word “protocol” along with the specific study type (e.g., a randomized controlled
trial).
Abstract: 200~350 words structured with the subheadings Background, Methods, Discussion, and
Registration.
Key words: 3~5.
Main Text: Study protocols should organize the main text in Introduction, Methods, and Discussion. Of
note, registration details and the study timeline are highly recommended included in the Methods. The
Discussion section may consider discussing potential challenges and solutions, and strengths and
limitations of the protocol etc. References: No limit.
Author Contributions: Study protocols should include a section describing the contribution made by each
Ethical Statement: Protocols for studies that require ethical approval, such as clinical trials, are unlikely to
be considered without having already received approval. When a study protocol documents any
experiment(s) involving human subjects or animals, the authors must indicate an ethical statement both in
the methods section and the footnote. See the “3.5.5 Ethical Statement” section for details.
Apart from following the general format as indicated above, authors should prepare the study protocol for
interventional trials according to the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for
Interventional Trials) Guidelines and their submission should include a reporting checklist (the reformatted
SPIRIT checklist for the journal can be downloaded here) as a supplementary material. The relevant
page/line and section/paragraph number in the manuscript should be stated for each item in the checklist.
A statement like “We present the protocol in accordance with the SPIRIT reporting checklist” should be
included at the end of the “Introduction”. The manuscript should also include a Reporting Checklist
statement in the footnote (see the “3.5 Footnote” section below). Failure to do so will result in the
manuscript being returned to the authors for their amendment. Please note that the application of a
checklist is aimed for transparent and clear reporting to allow critical appraisal of the manuscript.
The final format of the manuscript should follow the author instruction requirements.
2.10 Editorial and Editorial Commentary
2.10.1 Editorial
An Editorial is defined as a comment on an article or articles published in TLCR. Editorials are generally
solicited by the editorial office and written by recognized leader(s) in the field.
Word limit: 2,500 words max., excluding references, tables, and figures.
Key words: 3~5.
Main text: Unstructured.
References: 25 max., including the article being discussed.
Figures and Tables: 2 max. in total.
Ethical Statement: See the “3.5.5 Ethical Statement” section for details.
2.10.2 Editorial Commentary
The Editors extend an invitation to an expert in the field to discuss a paper, report, event or topic from
within the past few months, or in the near future. The problems addressed by the relevant
paper/report/event/topic should be considered within the wider context of the field.
Key words: 3~5.
References: 25 max., including the article being discussed.
Figures and Tables: 2 max. in total.
2.11 Letter to the Editor
We welcome the submission of letters regarding the content of the journal or other topics of interest to our
readers. The journal may invite replies from the authors of the original publication, or forward letters to
these authors. Correspondence is also referred to as a ‘Letter to the Editor’.
Key words: Not required.
References: 10 max.
Figures and Tables: 1 max.
2.12 Others
In general, TLCR does not accept articles that fall outside the above-mentioned categories. If you have
any questions regarding the article category for submission to TLCR, please contact the Editorial Office
at: editor@tlcr.org.
3. MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
The length of manuscripts must adhere to the specifications under the section “MANUSCRIPT
CATEGORIES”.
Manuscripts should be presented in the following order: (i) Title page; (ii) abstract and keywords; (iii) the
main text; (iv) Acknowledgments; (v) Footnote; (vi) References; (vii) Tables; (viii) Figures; (ix) Videos; (x)
Figure Legends; (xi)Supplementary material.
3.1 Title Page
The title page should include: a) the title of the article; b) the authors’ full names and institutional
affiliations; c) the address, telephone and fax numbers, and effective e-mail address of the corresponding
author(s) (extremely important for subsequent timely communication); d) a running title of no more than
60 characters (including spaces); e) disclaimers (if applicable); f) word count; g) number of figures and
tables; h) author contributions.
3.1.1 Author Contribution
Of note, the “h) author contributions” section is only required for original articles, review articles, clinical
practice guidelines, expert consensus, case reports, case series, and study protocols.
Author contribution describes the contribution each author made to the manuscript. Authorship credit
should be based on: 1) substantial contributions to the conception and design of the study, acquisition of
the data, or analysis and interpretation of the data; 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for
important intellectual content; and 3) the final approval of the version to be published; 4) Agreement 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. Authors should meet all four of these
conditions for authorship. However, acquisition of funding, collection of data, language editing, or general
supervision of the research group alone does not constitute authorship.
The ‘Author contributions’ section should be presented as follows:
(I) Conception and design:
(II) Administrative support:
(III) Provision of study materials or patients:
(IV) Collection and assembly of data:
(V) Data analysis and interpretation:
(VI) Manuscript writing: All authors
(VII) Final approval of manuscript: All authors
Note: With VI and VII, “All authors” is obligatory, while the other credits are case-based; The ‘Author
contributions’ section is not required when there is only one author.
Please carefully check the authorship of your manuscript before submission. Except for
grammatical corrections, any other changes of authorship after submission requires a sound
scientific justification.
See more details of authorship and contribution: https://tlcr.amegroups.com/page/about/authorship-and-
contributorship
3.2 Abstract and Keywords
The abstract must adhere to the specifications under the section ‘2. MANUSCRIPT CATEGORIES’. The
abstract should not contain any citations, figures, tables, or undefined abbreviations or acronyms. General
statements (e.g., “the significance of the results is discussed’’) should be avoided. After the Abstract, 3-5
keywords should be provided.
Where relevant, the study project registration number (e.g., registration number for a clinical trial, a
clinical guideline, a systematic review and meta-analysis, or an animal study) should be included at the
end of the abstract. For studies that have a registration number, this number should be included initially
when a trial acronym is used to refer to the trial in the report or to other trials discussed in the paper. For
data that have been deposited in a public repository and/or are the subject of analysis elsewhere, the
distinctive, persistent data set identifier, the repository name, and the number should be included at the
end of the abstract.
3.3 Main Text
The structure of main text must adhere to the specifications under the section “2. MANUSCRIPT
CATEGORIES”. In general, the main text of many articles in different types contains a) Introduction; b)
Methods; c) Results; d) Discussion; and e) Conclusions. However, there are differences and modifications
for difference types of articles regarding the above sections. Of note, a highlight box is required for some
article types.
3.3.1 Highlight Box
A highlight box is used to highly summarize the key findings/recommendations, innovation and potential
implications of the study.
Manuscript categories that require a highlight box: Original Article, Systematic Review, Scoping Review,
Clinical Practice Guideline, Expert Consensus, Case Report and Case Series.
Word limit: The box should be concise with no more than 150 words for Original Article, Systematic
Review, Scoping Review, Case Report and Case Series or 200 words for Clinical Practice Guideline and
Expert Consensus.
Template 1: Highlight Box for Original Article, Systematic Review, Scoping Review, Case Report and
Case Series.
Key findings
 Report here about key findings of the study.
What is known and what is new?
 Report here about what is known.

 Report here about what does this manuscript adds.
What is the implication, and what should change now?
 Report here about implications and actions needed.
Template 2: Highlight Box for Clinical Practice Guideline and Expert Consensus.
Key recommendations
 Report here about key recommendations.
What was recommended and what is new?
 Report here about what was recommended in existing evidence.

 Report here about what are the changes of recommendation.
What is the implication, and what should change now?
 Report here about implications and actions needed.
3.3.2 Introduction
The introduction should give a brief description of what we already know and what we don't know, with a
clear rationale defense based on the above. The introduction needs to very clearly specify the question
the study proposes to answer, and what the purpose of the study is.
For Original Article, Review Article, Systematic Review, Scoping Review, Narrative/Literature Review,
Clinical Practice Review, Clinical Practice Guideline, Expert Consensus, Case Report, Case Series, and
Study Protocol, we recommend that authors use a structured introduction to increase the readability:
 a) Background
 b) Rationale and knowledge gap
 c) Objective
3.3.3 Methods
Authors should report methods as exhaustively as possible to make the study more transparent and
reproducible. Specific reporting guidelines for each article type can be found at: https://www.equator-
network.org/
3.3.4 Results
The report of the study results needs to be properly detailed and paired well with the figures and tables
rather than repeating them. It is important to note that the results should be presented objectively and not
overly interpreted (interpretation should be done in the Discussion). In particular, the author needs to
ensure that the results and data are consistent and accurate throughout the manuscript. Any
inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the data and results may cause the editorial office and reviewers to
be extra concerned about the scientific validity and authenticity of the study.
Authors can find further requirements and recommendations on statistical considerations of the results in
“4. STATISTICAL REQUIREMENTS”.
3.3.5 Discussion
The discussion should be evidence-based, comprehensive, in-depth, and cutting-edge.
For Original Article, Systematic Review, Scoping Review, Case Report, and Case Series a separate
Discussion section is required. And, we recommend that authors use a structured discussion to increase
the readability:
 a) Key findings
 b) Strengths and limitations
 c) Comparison with similar researches
 d) Explanations of findings
 e) Implications and actions needed
For Review Article, Narrative Review/Literature Review, Clinical Practice Review, Mini-Review, Clinical
Practice Guideline, and Expert Consensus, although a separate Discussion section is not required,
authors are encouraged to include evidence-based, comprehensive, in-depth, and cutting-edge
discussion throughout the main body content. In particular, we recommend including a separate section
on strengths and limitations in the main body to promote a more intellectual interpretation.
3.3.6 Conclusions
Conclusions are summaries of the entire article. Conclusions need to be concise, usually using only one
paragraph. Conclusions need to be scientifically deducible from the results available and the information
presented, not exaggerated, out of scope, or even wrong.
Manuscript categories that require a separate conclusions section: Original Article, Review Article,
Systematic Review, Scoping Review, Narrative/Literature Review, Clinical Practice Review, Clinical
Practice Guideline, Expert Consensus, Case Report, and Case Series.
3.4 Acknowledgments
Textual material that names the parties that the author wishes to thank or recognize for their assistance
(e.g., producing, funding, or inspiring the work, or assisting in the research on which the work was based).
All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in the ‘Acknowledgments’
section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include an individual who provided purely
technical help, writing or language editing assistance, or a department chairperson who provided only
general support. If a part of the manuscript has been presented elsewhere (e.g., meeting
presentation/poster history), a corresponding statement should be provided in the acknowledgment
section. Financial and material support should also be acknowledged.
The ‘Acknowledgments’ section should also detail all funding sources for the work in question. There
must be a section “Funding” within the “Acknowledgments” section. If the research was carried out
without funding, "None" should be stated in this section.
In providing details of funding, authors should adhere to the following guidance:
 The sentence should begin: ‘This work was supported by …’

 The full official funding agency name should be given, (i.e., ‘National Institute of Health’, not
‘NIH’). Grant numbers should be given in brackets (e.g., [grant number xxxx]).
 Multiple grant numbers should be separated by a comma (e.g. [grant numbers xxxx, yyyy]).
 Agencies should be separated by a semi-colon (with ‘and’ before the last funding agency)
 Where certain sources of funding were received by a specific author, the following text should
be added after the relevant agency or grant number: ‘to [author initials]’.
Example: ‘This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health [AA123456 to C.S., BB765432 to
M.H.]; and the Alcohol & Education Research Council [hfygr667789].’
3.5 Footnote
For articles written in accordance with specific reporting guidelines, the author must include the
“Reporting Checklist” section in the footnote and indicate, “The authors have completed the XXXX
reporting checklist.”
If the manuscript is accepted for publication, the author’s completed checklist will be published online
alongside the manuscript.
3.5.2 Data Sharing Statement
If an original article includes any data that are not publicly available, the authors are required to fill in a
data-sharing statement form, which should be submitted along with their manuscript. If the article is
accepted for publication, the Data Availability Statement (form) will be published online alongside the
article. The data sharing statement form can be downloaded here.
3.5.3 Peer Review File
With a commitment to openness and accountability, and to increase the level of transparency throughout
our peer review process, TLCR has decided to implement a transparent peer review process as an option
for all manuscripts submitted to the journal.
The practice will see the inclusion of a “peer review file” (a record of reviewer reports and author replies)
in the footnote of the corresponding article. The peer review file will be published online (only) along with
the article.
For more details, please refer to: https://tlcr.amegroups.com/announcement/view/264.
3.5.4 Conflicts of Interest
All authors will be asked to fill in the ICMJE’s unified disclosure form (the latest version). The form could
be downloaded at: https://cdn.amegroups.cn/static/public/coi_disclosure.docx. Each author should submit
a separate form and is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the submitted information. The
corresponding author should use the information in the form completed by each author to create the COI
statement for the manuscript. The statement (but not the forms) must be included along with the
submission. The statement should include the initials of the author along with the conflicts of interest. The
following examples show the format in which the Conflicts of Interest statement should appear in the
manuscript:
“Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form. The authors have
no conflicts of interest to declare.”
“Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form. KSS and VS are
former employees of Scanco Medical AG. NV is a current employee of Scanco Medical AG. The other
authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.”
If the paper is accepted, the completed ICMJE’s unified disclosure forms will be required and will be
published alongside the article.
See journal’s policy on conflicts of interest: https://tlcr.amegroups.com/page/about/conflicts-of-interest.
3.5.5 Ethical Statement
Statement #A is a must for every article, followed by statement #B.
Statement #B should be described ①based on whether the specific content of the article requires
an additional ethical statement; ②both in the Methods section and the “Ethical Statement”
section of Footnote.
Statement #C should be noted as it is related to Inform Consent.
#A. (a Must) Statement for every article
Please note that all articles submitted to our journal must include an Ethical Statement in Footnote,
containing the following wording: “The authors are 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.”
#B. The specific content of the article requires an additional ethical statement
(a) Human Experiments
For research involving human experiments, the article must include a statement that ethical approval
was obtained (or a statement that it was not required and why), including the name of the ethics
committee(s) or institutional review board(s), the number/ID of the approval(s), and a statement that the
participants gave informed consent before taking part (or a statement that it was not required and why).
Authors should also state that the study conformed to the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki (as
revised in 2013), available at: https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-
principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects. For example:
(For prospective experiments) Ethical Statement: The authors are 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. The trial was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (as
revised in 2013). The study was approved by institutional/regional/national ethics/committee/ethics board
of ******* (NO.: the registration number of ethics board) and informed consent was taken from all
individual participants.
(For retrospective experiments) Ethical Statement: The authors are 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. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of
Helsinki (as revised in 2013). The study was approved by institutional/regional/national
ethics/committee/ethics board of ******* (NO.: the registration number of ethics board) and individual
consent for this retrospective analysis was waived.
(b) Animal Experiments
For any experiments involving animals, the authors must indicate the nature of the ethical review
permissions, relevant licenses (e.g., Animal [Scientific Procedures] Act 1986), and national or institutional
guidelines for the care and use of animals by which the research was conducted. Describe this
information in both the “Method” section and the “Ethical Statement” section on Footnote. For example:
Ethical Statement: The authors are 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.
Experiments were performed under a project license (NO.: the license number) granted by
institutional/regional/national ethics/committee/ethics board of *******, in compliance with ******* national
or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals.
In addition, we strongly recommend that authors register experiments that include animals and state the
registration number in the methods and footnote. For authors' reference, registration platforms such
as Open Science Framework and Animal Study Registry are commonly used.
(c) Case Report and Case Series
Whenever possible, signed consent should be obtained from the patient (or their parent/guardian) to write
and publish a Case Report or Case Series. This is particularly important where the unique nature of the
incident being reported makes it possible for the subject to be identified (such as when the patient is over
100 years old; the manuscript has photographs or images or has a rare disease). Beyond that, please
keep patient details anonymous whenever possible, for example, occupations unrelated to the
disease/condition. If informed consent cannot be obtained, for example, if the patient has passed away
and the author is unable to obtain signed consent from the guardian or family of the deceased patient, the
authors need to state that they have made the best efforts to contact the relative and that the article has
been sufficiently anonymized to cause no harm to the patient or his or her family.
Authors should also state that the study conformed to the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki (as
revised in 2013), available at: https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-
principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects. Please describe this information in both the
“Case Presentation” section and the “Ethical Statement” section on Footnote. For example:
(For manuscripts that have patient consent) Ethical Statement: The authors are 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. All procedures performed in this study were in accordance
with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee(s) and with the Helsinki
Declaration (as revised in 2013). Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication
of this case report and accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is available for review by the
editorial office of this journal.
(For manuscripts that do not have patient consent) Ethical Statement: The authors are 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. All procedures performed in this study were in accordance
with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee(s) and with the Helsinki
Declaration (as revised in 2013). Written informed consent for publication of this case report and
accompanying images was not obtained from the patient or the relatives after all possible attempts were
made.
(For manuscripts that are waived from patient consent) Ethical Statement: The authors are 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. All procedures performed in this study were in
accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee(s) and with
the Helsinki Declaration (as revised in 2013). Publication of this case report and accompanying images
was waived from patient consent according to the xxx ethics committee/institutional review board.
#C. Inform Consent
Written informed consent for the publication of details relating to an individual person must be obtained
from that person (or their parent or legal guardian in the case of children under 18) for all manuscripts that
include images, details, or videos. The consent must be for publication of their details under the Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) (such
that they will be freely available on the internet). If the person has deceased, consent for publication must
be acquired from their next of family. A statement that written informed consent for publication was
obtained must be included in the manuscript.
To get consent for publication, authors can use the consent form (download the form for patient or
the form for participant) or a consent form from their own institution or region, if suitable. The consent
form must specify that the details/images/videos will be freely available on the internet and that the
general public will be able to view them. Authors do not need to provide a copy of the consent form to the
editorial office; however, if the Editor requests it, the consent form must be provided and will be kept
confidential.
Consent for image publication may not be necessary in circumstances where photographs are completely
unidentified and there are no details on persons mentioned within the text. The Editor has the final say on
whether or not consent to publish is required.
The Editorial Office may request copies of the informed consent documentation at any time. While the
Editorial Board recognizes that it might not always be possible or appropriate to seek such consent, the
onus will be on the authors to demonstrate that this exception applies in their case.
The Journal retains the right to reject any manuscript on the basis of unethical conduct in either human or
animal studies.
3.6 References
Sources should be referenced according to the Vancouver reference style.
In text, references should be identified using numbers in round brackets. Where more than one number is
required, they should appear consecutively [e.g., "cancer-related mortality (19)”; “denocarcinoma (29,30)”;
“raised significantly (15, 20, 31-33)”]. References (including in the text, tables and figure legends) should
be numbered consecutively and consistently according to the order in which they first appear in the text.
In reference list, the titles of journals should be abbreviated according to the style used in Index Medicus.
For reports with up to three authors, all the author names should be listed. However, if a report has more
than three authors, the first three authors should be listed followed by “et al.”
 McLeer-Florin A, Lantuéjoul S. Why technical aspects rather than biology explain cellular
heterogeneity in ALK-positive nonsmall cell lung cancer. J Thorac Dis 2012;4:240-1.
 Lin X, Li W, Lai J, et al. Five-year update on the mouse model of orthotopic lung
transplantation: Scientific uses, tricks of the trade, and tips for success. J Thorac Dis
2012;4:247-58.
For other styles of publication (e.g., books, Internet articles, website links etc.), please refer to samples
here: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/uniform_requirements.html
Below are two examples for management of the reference:
a. If you manage references manually or in other way, you could refer to the reference example below:
Lin X, Li W, Lai J, et al. Five-year update on the mouse model of orthotopic lung transplantation: Scientific
uses, tricks of the trade, and tips for success. J Thorac Dis 2012;4:247-58.
b. If you use “Endnote” (a commercial reference management software package produced by Clarivate
Analytics, used to manage bibliographies and references when writing essays and articles), the reference
style file for AME journals can be directly downloaded
here: https://cdn.amegroups.cn/static/public/reference-style.ens.
3.7 Tables
Tables are recommended provided in separate files. Tables should be self-contained and complement,
but not duplicate, the information contained in the text. All tables should be numbered consecutively in the
order in which they are mentioned in the text. Each table should be on a separate page; tables must be
typed and editable in a tabular format that is convenient for copyediting and typesetting; they should not
be inserted as images. Please refer to the examples for different cases.
Each column must have an appropriate heading and, if measurements are given, the units should be
provided in the column heading. Column headings should be brief, with units of measurement in
parentheses; all abbreviations must be defined in footnotes. Footnote symbols: †, ‡, §, ¶, should be used
(in this order), and *, **, *** should be reserved for P-values. Statistical measures such as SD or SEM
should be identified in the headings.
If the tables have been reproduced from another source, a letter or permission from the copyright holder
(usually the publisher) authorizing the reproduction of the material must be submitted as supplemental
material along with the manuscript.
3.8 Figures
Figures are recommended provided in separate files. All illustrations (line drawings and photographs) are
classified as figures. Figures should be cited in the order in which they appear in the text. Magnifications
should be indicated using a scale bar on the illustration.
 File types, resolution, size: Please refer to the specification (file types, resolution, image

size, file size etc.) for more detailed requirements.
 Figure legends: Legends should be provided for figures, including the figure title, the full
name of any abbreviation in the figure, a detailed description of any symbol in the figure (e.g.,
some color notation or arrows), and a separate description of each figure if it is a combination
of several figures, etc.
 Copyright: If the figures have been reproduced from another source, a letter from the
copyright holder (usually the publisher) authorizing the reproduction of the material must be
attached to the covering letter (see “6. COPYRIGHT AND PERMISSION”).
 Patient Privacy: Where illustrations include recognizable individuals, living or deceased,
great care must be taken to ensure that consent for publication has been given (see “Ethical
Statement”). A statement like “This image is published with the patient/participant’s consent.”
should be included at the end of the figure legend. Patient anonymity should be preserved.
Nonessential identifying details should be omitted. For example, photographs need to be
cropped sufficiently to prevent human subjects from being recognized and the eyes and
eyebrows (at a minimum) must be masked using Coarse Pixilation to make the individual
unrecognizable. However, masking the eye region in photographs of patients is inadequate
protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are deidentified, authors should provide
assurance that such changes do not distort scientific meaning.
In-text citations
 Cite figures with the format: Figure 1A, Figure 1B, Figure 2, Figure 3, etc. When consecutive
subparts of a figure are cited, they should be cited as: Figure 1A-1D, Figure 2B-2L, etc.
 Cite figures in ascending numeric order upon first appearance in the manuscript file. This
includes citations to text boxes and tables. In the published article, figures are inserted
according to the placement of their first citation and caption in the article.
 Lettered subparts of whole figures may be cited in any order in the text if the first mention of
each whole figure is in numerical order. For example, Figure 1 contains 4 subparts (i.e.:
Figure 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D). These subparts should be cited consecutively, unless Figure 1 as a
whole is already cited before Figure 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D.
3.8.1 Western Blot Figures

A separate note is worthwhile, as the problem of Western Blot figures is particularly serious in published
studies in the academic community. To further improve the reporting transparency of Western Blot figures
when Western Blot experiments are used in a study, we strongly recommend that its report adopt several
recommendations as follows.
 Ensure that the raw data is accessible to readers. The authors could provide the original
images without cropping or any other processing in the Supplement.
 Make sure that the Western Blot figure contains at least one molecular weight marker above
and below the protein of interest.
 Crop as few as possible. The presence of non-specific bands is very common and the reader
needs to be aware of these.
 Better to present with dot plots, which can inform readers about sample size and spread of
data.
 Report Methods in detail, including the amount of total protein loaded onto the gel, details of
the membrane blocking protocol, antibody identifiers and details of antibody labeling protocol,
type and number of replicates performed, etc.
For more details, examples and templates on how to better report Western Blot figures authors can
view: https://osf.io/yr7am; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36095010/
3.9 Videos
Videos are recommended provided in separate files. The journal will accept digital files in mp4, flash
video (flv.), MPEG (MPEG video file), DVD video, mov., avi., and mwv. formats or videos on CD / DVD.
Contributors are asked to be succinct, and the editorial office reserves the right to request a shorter video
if necessary. Video files can be submitted online at: https://tlcr.amegroups.com/pages/view/submit-
multimedia-files
 Duration: Video files should be limited to 20 minutes.

 Quality: Please set the video aspect ratio as 4:3 or 16:9 (widescreen). The original video
should be of high quality with the resolution > = 1280*720, the frame rate > = 24 frames per
second and the bit rate > = 5 Mbps.
 In-video text and audio: Videos should have text or symbols or audio descriptions. All text
notes, explanations, or descriptions, etc. in the video must be provided in English. The logo
or watermark of the hospital / institution should not appear on screen. Any patient information
should be erased from the video.
 Video legends: Legends should be provided for the video files. The video files should be
numbered consecutively in their order of reference in the text.
 Copyright: If the videos have been reproduced from another source, a letter from the
copyright holder (usually the publisher) authorizing the reproduction of the material must be
attached to the covering letter. It is especially worth noting that if background music appears
in a video, the author should also obtain authorization from the copyright owner of that music
if that music is involved in copyright licensing (see “6. COPYRIGHT AND PERMISSION”).
For promotion, all accepted videos will be subsequently included in AME Surgical Video Database
(ASVIDE: https://www.asvide.com) and its youtube channel
(https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCA4NnVYmMW2NS5QrnLEVQNg).
3.10 Supplementary Appendix
The Supplementary Appendix should be paginated, with a table of contents, followed by the list of
investigators (if there are any), text (such as methods), figures, tables, and then references. The
supplementary appendix should not be included in the article’s reference list.
The Appendix must be submitted in a Word file. The Appendix will not be edited for style. It will be
presented online as additional information provided by the authors.
The published article will contain a statement that supplementary material exists online and will provide
the reader with a URL and / or link. Refer to the following example for how to reference the
supplementary appendix in the text of the article: “Many more regressions were run than can be included
in the article. The interested reader can find them in a supplementary appendix online.”
4. STATISTICAL REQUIREMENTS
Regardless of the article type, the presentation of data in your article should follow the SAMPL guidelines
for statistics, as shown in detail, linked
to: https://www.equator-network.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/SAMPL-Guidelines-3-13-13.pdf
Of note:
 The authors should describe the statistical methods in as much detail as possible so that
readers with the requisite knowledge and access to the data can verify the results reported in
the article.
 If possible, quantify the results and provide the quantified results and associated parameters
of measured uncertainty as appropriate (e.g., confidence intervals) and avoid providing only
the results of statistical hypothesis tests (e.g., P values) because they do not convey
important information about statistical effects. For example, reporting "2.75; 95% CI -1.89 to
3.86; P=0.26".
 When 95% CIs are wide, statistics should be interpreted with caution, whether or not they are
statistically significant.
 Unless the study design calls for the use of a one-sided test, such as a noninferiority trial,
other reported P values should be two-sided tests.
 For secondary, subgroup analyses, the possibility of Type I errors due to multiple
comparisons should be described and the interpretation of such analyses should be done
with caution, similarly for post hoc analyses.
 Caution should be taken for the cases of P=0 and P=1.
Reporting of P values:
 The description of the P value should be in uppercase italic format, i.e., "P".

 If P value< 0.001, report "P < 0.001" to avoid reporting unnecessarily excessive precision
(with the exception of hypothesis tests that include correlations or studies with exponentially
small P values, such as genetic association studies, which can be reported exponentially,
e.g., P=1×10-5).
 If 0.001≤ P value< 0.01, report the specific P value to 3 decimal places, e.g., "P=0.001"
"P=0.009".
 If P value≥0.01, report the specific P value to 2 decimal places, e.g., "P=0.01" "P=0.06"
"P=0.10" "P=0.90".
 If the P value is >0.99, report "P>0.99".
 Do not round P values, do not report "not significant" simply because the data is greater than
an arbitrary value, and do not report only vague bounds such as P<0.05, as described above,
but report the exact P value.
5. STYLE OF THE MANUSCRIPT

5.1 Vancouver Style
Manuscripts must follow the style of the Vancouver agreement detailed in the International Committee of
Medical Journal Editors’ revised ‘Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical
Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication’, as presented at: http://www.ICMJE.org/.
 Author name: Each author’s given name should be followed by their surname. The first letter
of the surname should be capitalized. A hyphen can be used in the surname depending on
the rule in the author’s region.
Note: Author names will be published exactly as they appear in the manuscript file. Please
double-check the information carefully to make sure it is correct. If applicable, an ORCID
should be placed after the name of the author.
 Abbreviation of an author’s name: The first letter of each capitalized word will be used for the
name’s abbreviation, i.e., “Shaoling Li” becomes “SL.” The first letter of the second name
SHOULD NOT be capitalized, or else it will be included in the abbreviation. However, if the
author wishes to use an abbreviation that includes their second name, they should write their
second name using a hyphen to connect it with its anterior word, i.e., “Shao-Ling Li” to
become “SLL.”
 Spelling: British or American spelling is acceptable but must be consistent throughout.
 Numbers: for numbers below 20, use the full English spelling, e.g., "nineteen" instead of "19";
for numbers ≥20, use the Arabic numerals; for numbers ≥1,000, use the thousand separator,
i.e., "1,000" instead of "1000".
 Italics: Medical Latin words need to be italicized, e.g., in vivo, in vitro.
 Units: All measurements must be given in SI or SI derived units. For more information about
SI units, please go to the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) website
at: https://www.bipm.org/en/about-us.
 Abbreviations: must be used sparingly and only where they ease the reader’s task by
reducing repetition of long, technical terms. Initially, the full term should be given, followed by
the abbreviation in parentheses. Thereafter, only the abbreviation should appear.
 Trade names: Drugs should be referred to by their generic names. If proprietary drugs have
been used in the study, these should be referred to by their generic name, with the
proprietary name and the name and location of the manufacturer mentioned in parentheses.
 Format: Text should be double-spaced throughout. The pages should be numbered.
 Font: A clearly readable font (e.g., Arial, Calibri, Times New Roman, or Verdana) with 10 or
12 pt. font size.
5.2 Language
TLCR only publish articles written in English. British or American spelling is acceptable but must be
consistent throughout. We recommend language polish for non-native speaker authors. We
recognize AME Editing Service and other platforms for language polishing.
5.3 Data Citation
We are committed to improving openness, transparency, and reproducibility of research, and believe
research data citation through standard reference lists offers an easy way to access data for reproducible
research.
To support best practice in data citation, AME has endorsed the FORCE11 Data Citation Principles
(https://www.force11.org/datacitationprinciples). According to the FORCE11 Data Citation Principles, data
can be cited in the same way as article, book, and web citations, and authors are required to include data
citations as part of their reference list.
Data citation is applicable for data held within institutional, subject-focused, or more general data
repositories. When citing or making claims based on data, authors should refer to the data at the relevant
place in the main text of the manuscript and include a formal citation in the reference list. We recommend
the format proposed in the Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles.
Below is an example of an in-text data citation:
[dataset] Authors; Year; Dataset title; Data repository or archive; Version (if any); Persistent identifier
(e.g., DOI)
“[dataset]” should be included immediately before the reference so it can be properly identified as a data
reference.
5.4 Equations
Equations should be numbered sequentially with Arabic numerals; these should appear right in
parentheses. All variables should appear in italics. Use the simplest possible form for all mathematical
symbols. For example:
 “a2+b2=c2” equations: normal text format.

 All other equations: a graphic of the entire equation should be produced using MathType and
inserted into the main body of the text as an object.
5.5 Abbreviations and Symbols

Use as few abbreviations as possible, as too many abbreviations increase readers' reading load, slow
down reading, and make comprehension more difficult. When abbreviations are considered, use only
standard abbreviations. All abbreviations should be defined when they are first used in the text unless the
abbreviation is a standard unit of measurement and a list of full terms should be provided in the
manuscript.
6. COPYRIGHT AND PERMISSIONS
For specification, please refer to: https://tlcr.amegroups.com/page/about/copyright-and-permission
7. PEER REVIEW PROCESS
For specification, please refer to: https://tlcr.amegroups.com/pages/view/peer-review-process

8. ARTICLE PROCESSING CHARGES
For specification, please refer to: https://tlcr.amegroups.com/pages/view/article-processing-charges

9. PROOFS
Page proofs will be sent to the author via e-mail. Page proofs should be returned within three working
days, preferably by e-mail. Corrections should be marked on the actual proof and provided in a numbered
list. Lengthy additions should be avoided but, when necessary, should be provided in an MS Word file
with explicit instructions regarding placement.
10. OFFPRINTS AND REPRINTS
Authors will be sent a free URL link to the published online article for their personal use. Authors who
wish to purchase hard-copy offprints should fill in the offprint order form, which will be sent with the
author’s proof. Orders should be sent to the Editorial Office. Orders for reprints should be sent to the
Publisher’s Office.
11. SUBMITTING AND TRACKING MANUSCRIPTS
All articles are submitted and the entire review process is managed electronically through the OJS system
(https://tlcr.amegroups.com/login), which has been developed to provide authors with a straightforward
online submission process.
For any questions, please contact our Editorial Office by e-mail: editor@tlcr.org.
Updated on November 10, 2022

Thank You For Your Interest in

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thank You For Your Interest in

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thank you for your interest in

Translational Lung Cancer Research (TLCR, Transl Lung Cancer Res, Print

 Antibodies: "antibody against ERK1 (Abgent Cat# AP7251E, RRID:AB_2140114)."

2.2 Review Article

2.9 Study Protocol

 Report here about key findings of the study.

What is known and what is new?

 Report here about what is known.

What is the implication, and what should change now?

 Report here about implications and actions needed.

 Report here about key recommendations.

What was recommended and what is new?

 Report here about what was recommended in existing evidence.

What is the implication, and what should change now?

 Report here about implications and actions needed.

 The sentence should begin: ‘This work was supported by …’

 File types, resolution, size: Please refer to the specification (file types, resolution, image

3.8.1 Western Blot Figures

 Duration: Video files should be limited to 20 minutes.

 The description of the P value should be in uppercase italic format, i.e., "P".

5. STYLE OF THE MANUSCRIPT

 “a2+b2=c2” equations: normal text format.

5.5 Abbreviations and Symbols

For specification, please refer to: https://tlcr.amegroups.com/pages/view/peer-review-process

For specification, please refer to: https://tlcr.amegroups.com/pages/view/article-processing-charges

Updated on November 10, 2022

You might also like