Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Improving the likelihood of manuscript acceptance; a primer for trainees and young investigators
  1. Michael Chen1,
  2. Felipe C Albuquerque2,
  3. Joshua Hirsch3,
  4. Robert W Tarr4
  1. 1Department of Neurological Sciences, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
  2. 2Division of Neurological Surgery, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
  3. 3NeuroEndovascular Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  4. 4Department of Radiology, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Ohio, Ohio, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr M Chen, Department of Neurological Surgery and Neurological Sciences, Rush University Medical Center, 1725 West Harrison Street, Suite 855, Chicago, IL 60612, USA;

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


Since our inception, over the past 4 years, JNIS manuscript submissions have doubled in number to almost 500 a year. Out of necessity, the journal has become increasingly selective viz a viz the manuscripts that are ultimately published. As a result, this is an opportune time to address elements of the manuscript review process, and to suggest common practices that generally improve the likelihood of manuscript acceptance. Specific suggestions pertaining to each of the original research manuscript components are made. It is our hope that neurointerventionalists in training and young investigators find this editor's comment useful in putting together future articles for JNIS.


The title should be as concise and unambiguous as possible. It should contain key words and, if possible, give the main result of the study. The title sets the tone of the manuscript and is the initial data point which is used by the reader to decide whether or not to proceed with reading the paper. Examples of well constructed titles include ‘Admission neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio predicts 90 day outcome after endovascular stroke therapy’1 and ‘ASPECTS decay during inter-facility transfer predicts patient outcomes in endovascular reperfusion in ischemic stroke’.2


The introduction should establish the context of the manuscript. Prior evidence based knowledge regarding the research hypothesis should be briefly referenced. This should be followed by a clear statement conveying why the present work under consideration was conducted. Next, the hypothesis, or study aims, should …

View Full Text


  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.