Scientific, ethical, reporting, formatting, and submission requirements for manuscripts submitted to AACC.
Archives of Academic Critical Care (AACC) welcomes scientifically rigorous, ethically conducted, transparently reported, and clinically relevant manuscripts in critical care, intensive care medicine, emergency medicine, acute care, and related clinical, translational, nursing, methodological, educational, health-services, and technological fields.
These Instructions for Authors describe the scientific, ethical, reporting, formatting, and submission requirements for manuscripts submitted to AACC. Authors are expected to read the instructions before submission and follow the requirements applicable to their study design and article type.
AACC uses double-anonymized peer review for manuscripts selected for external review. Author-identifying information must therefore be separated from the manuscript used during peer review.
The journal's requirements are informed by current recommendations and reporting standards relevant to biomedical publishing, including the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), relevant Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidance, and study-specific reporting guidelines indexed by the EQUATOR Network.
A manuscript may be returned before external peer review when essential scientific, ethical, reporting, authorship, or submission requirements have not been met.
Submission indicates that all listed authors have approved the submitted version, accept responsibility for their contributions, and agree to consideration of the manuscript by AACC.
AACC considers manuscripts addressing the care of critically and acutely ill patients and the organization, delivery, evaluation, and improvement of acute and critical care.
Relevant areas include, but are not limited to, resuscitation, sepsis and shock, respiratory failure, mechanical ventilation, cardiovascular critical care, neurocritical care, trauma, acute kidney injury, renal replacement therapy, extracorporeal organ support, infectious diseases, toxicology, point-of-care ultrasonography, critical care nursing, patient safety, quality improvement, rehabilitation, clinical decision-making, prognostic and diagnostic models, disaster medicine, medical education, health services, ethics, digital health, artificial intelligence, machine learning, clinical informatics, and emerging technologies relevant to emergency and critical care.
Submission does not guarantee external peer review. Manuscripts are first evaluated for relevance to the journal, scientific contribution, methodological adequacy, ethical acceptability, reporting quality, and suitability for the AACC readership.
Before submitting a manuscript, authors should select the correct article type, follow the appropriate reporting guideline, prepare the required declarations, confirm authorship and contributorship, ensure that ethics and registration requirements have been met, and prepare all supporting files required for the study design.
The Title Page and Blinded Manuscript must be submitted separately.
Where a reporting guideline applies, the relevant checklist and flow diagram should be prepared before submission.
Authors should verify all numerical results, tables, figures, references, registration information, ethics statements, and declarations before uploading the manuscript.
AACC currently considers nine principal article types.
| Article Type | Main Text | Abstract | References | Tables/Figures |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Original Article | 4,000 words | 300 words, structured | 50 | Up to 6 |
| Systematic Review / Meta-analysis | 5,000 words | 300 words, structured | 100 | Up to 8 |
| Narrative Review | 5,000 words | 250 words, usually unstructured | 100 | Up to 8 |
| Brief Report | 2,000 words | 250 words, structured | 30 | Up to 4 |
| Case Report | 2,000 words | 250 words, structured | 25 | Up to 4 |
| Clinical Image | 600 words | None | 10 | Up to 4 image panels |
| Editorial | 1,500 words | None | 20 | Up to 2 |
| Perspective | 2,500 words | 200 words, unstructured | 40 | Up to 4 |
| Correspondence / Letter | 1,000 words | None | 15 | Up to 1 |
Word limits refer to the main text and exclude the abstract, references, tables, figure legends, acknowledgments, declarations, and supplementary material.
These are standard journal limits rather than absolute rules. Scientifically justified exceptions may be considered by the editors.
Information necessary to understand or evaluate a study should not be omitted merely to satisfy a word limit. Authors requiring a substantial exception should explain the reason in the cover letter.
Original Articles report complete original research relevant to the journal's scope.
AACC considers clinical trials, observational studies, diagnostic-accuracy studies, prognostic studies, prediction-model studies, qualitative research, mixed-methods research, quality-improvement studies, health-services research, economic evaluations, implementation studies, methodological studies, translational research, and other appropriately designed investigations.
The standard main-text limit is 4,000 words, with a maximum 300-word structured abstract, approximately 50 references, and normally no more than six tables and figures combined.
The abstract should normally use:
Background · Methods · Results · Conclusion
The Background should identify the problem and objective without providing an extended review.
The Methods should identify the study design, setting when relevant, population, principal exposure or intervention, comparator when applicable, primary outcome, and major analytical method.
The Results should provide the principal numerical findings and, where appropriate, effect estimates with confidence intervals rather than relying solely on P values.
The Conclusion must be directly supported by the reported findings.
Clinical trial registration information should appear at the end of the abstract when applicable.
Introduction · Methods · Results · Discussion · Conclusion · Declarations · References
Methods and Results may contain descriptive subheadings appropriate to the study design.
A clinical observational study, for example, may use Methods subsections such as Study Design and Setting, Participants, Variables and Measurements, Outcomes, Sample Size, and Statistical Analysis.
Randomized trials should follow CONSORT 2025 and relevant extensions.
Observational cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies should follow STROBE and applicable extensions.
Diagnostic-accuracy studies should follow STARD. Diagnostic-accuracy studies involving artificial intelligence should additionally follow STARD-AI where applicable.
Clinical prediction-model studies using regression or machine-learning approaches should follow TRIPOD+AI.
Studies specifically developing, tuning, prompt-engineering, or evaluating large language models should follow TRIPOD-LLM where applicable.
Qualitative studies should follow COREQ or SRQR, according to the methodology.
Quality-improvement studies should follow SQUIRE.
Economic evaluations should follow CHEERS.
Animal studies should follow ARRIVE.
Randomized evaluations of artificial-intelligence interventions should also follow relevant CONSORT-AI requirements.
An Original Article submission normally includes the Title Page, blinded manuscript, cover letter, relevant reporting checklist, figures as separate publication-quality files where appropriate, and supplementary material when required.
A participant flow diagram is required for randomized trials. Other flow diagrams or methodological supplementary material should be supplied when required by the applicable reporting standard.
AACC considers systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis when they address a clearly defined question, use reproducible methods, critically evaluate eligible evidence, and provide a meaningful contribution beyond existing reviews.
The standard main-text limit is 5,000 words, with a maximum 300-word structured abstract, approximately 100 references, and normally no more than eight tables and figures combined.
AACC does not regard a manuscript as a systematic review merely because several databases were searched. A systematic review should have a prespecified question, explicit eligibility criteria, reproducible search methods, systematic study selection, structured data collection, appraisal of study limitations or risk of bias, and an appropriate method of evidence synthesis.
The abstract should normally use:
Background · Methods · Results · Conclusion
The Methods should identify the principal information sources, eligibility framework, period covered by the search, approach to risk-of-bias assessment, and synthesis method.
The Results should state the number of included studies and participants where meaningful and report principal quantitative findings with measures of uncertainty when meta-analysis was performed.
The review registration number should appear at the end of the abstract when applicable.
Introduction · Methods · Results · Discussion · Conclusion · Declarations · References
The Methods should report the protocol and registration, eligibility criteria, information sources, complete search strategy, study-selection process, data-collection process, data items, risk-of-bias assessment, effect measures, synthesis methods, investigation of heterogeneity, sensitivity analyses, assessment of reporting bias where appropriate, and the approach used to assess certainty or confidence in evidence where applicable.
The Results should report study selection, study characteristics, risk-of-bias findings, results of individual studies, results of each synthesis, heterogeneity, subgroup or sensitivity analyses where performed, reporting-bias assessments, and certainty of evidence where relevant.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses should comply with PRISMA 2020 and relevant PRISMA extensions.
A completed PRISMA checklist and appropriate flow diagram are required.
Complete reproducible search strategies for every major bibliographic database should be available in the manuscript or supplementary material.
Diagnostic test accuracy reviews, network meta-analyses, scoping reviews, individual-participant-data meta-analyses, and other specialized evidence syntheses should use the relevant reporting extensions.
Systematic reviews eligible for registration in PROSPERO or another appropriate prospective registry are expected to be registered prospectively.
If an eligible review was not registered prospectively, authors should disclose this and explain the reason.
Material deviations from a registered protocol should be identified and explained.
Meta-analysis should be undertaken only when clinical and methodological compatibility makes statistical synthesis meaningful.
Authors should identify the effect measure, model assumptions, approach to between-study heterogeneity, confidence-interval method, treatment of zero events where relevant, and methods used for subgroup, sensitivity, meta-regression, or publication-bias analyses.
Fixed-effect and random-effects approaches should not be selected solely according to a statistical heterogeneity test. The choice should reflect the scientific assumptions and clinical and methodological characteristics of the included studies.
For diagnostic-accuracy meta-analysis, methods appropriate to paired measures of sensitivity and specificity should be used when the available data permit them.
When quantitative pooling is inappropriate, authors should explain why and use a structured synthesis rather than present an unjustified pooled estimate.
The submission should include the Title Page, blinded manuscript, cover letter, completed PRISMA checklist, PRISMA flow diagram, complete database search strategies, and supplementary tables or analyses necessary to reproduce the review methods.
If a protocol has been published or registered, its citation or registration record should be provided.
Narrative Reviews provide a critical, authoritative, and clinically useful synthesis of a defined topic.
They should do more than summarize a sequence of publications. A strong Narrative Review should explain the current state of knowledge, evaluate agreement and uncertainty, identify limitations in the evidence, and help readers interpret existing findings.
The standard main-text limit is 5,000 words, with a maximum 250-word abstract, approximately 100 references, and normally no more than eight tables and figures combined.
Narrative Reviews may be invited or unsolicited. Invitation does not guarantee acceptance.
The abstract is usually unstructured and should identify the subject, purpose, principal themes, major evidence-based conclusions, and relevant areas of uncertainty.
A Narrative Review may include:
Introduction
Approach to Literature Identification, when appropriate
Thematic Sections
Clinical or Scientific Implications
Knowledge Gaps and Future Directions
Conclusion
Declarations
References
Thematic headings should reflect the actual subject rather than generic labels.
Although a Narrative Review does not require the full methodology of a systematic review, authors should provide enough information for readers to understand how the evidence base was identified and selected.
For comprehensive reviews, the manuscript should generally identify the principal databases or sources consulted, approximate search period, major concepts used to locate relevant literature, and basis for prioritizing evidence.
A manuscript should not imply that literature was systematically identified, selected, or appraised unless systematic methods were actually used.
Statements concerning treatment effects, diagnostic performance, prognosis, causality, or safety should be supported by appropriate evidence.
Primary studies should be cited where essential to a claim. High-quality systematic reviews and guidelines may be used to summarize broader bodies of evidence.
Evidence should be distinguished clearly from author interpretation, and important scientific disagreement should be represented fairly.
A Narrative Review normally requires a Title Page, blinded manuscript, and cover letter.
A supplementary search strategy, evidence table, methodological appendix, or additional source documentation is encouraged when it improves transparency.
Brief Reports communicate focused original research that can be reported adequately in a concise format.
This category may include studies with a narrow research question, smaller but scientifically meaningful datasets, pilot or feasibility studies, focused secondary analyses, preliminary investigations with a justified scope, or other original research for which a full-length Original Article is unnecessary.
The standard main-text limit is 2,000 words, with a maximum 250-word structured abstract, approximately 30 references, and normally no more than four tables and figures combined.
A Brief Report is not a mechanism for omitting methodological information necessary to evaluate validity.
Background · Methods · Results · Conclusion
The abstract should include principal numerical findings and measures of uncertainty where appropriate.
Introduction · Methods · Results · Discussion · Conclusion · Declarations · References
Essential methodological information must remain available in the manuscript or appropriate supplementary material.
The same reporting guideline that applies to the corresponding full Original Article applies to a Brief Report.
Case Reports describe individual patients or a small number of closely related patients when the observation provides a clear clinical, diagnostic, therapeutic, safety, educational, or scientific message.
Rarity alone is not sufficient for publication.
Priority is given to reports providing an important diagnostic lesson, unexpected treatment response, insufficiently characterized adverse event, clinically important reasoning challenge, novel presentation, uncommon complication, or another observation relevant to acute or critical care.
The standard main-text limit is 2,000 words, with a maximum 250-word structured abstract, approximately 25 references, and normally no more than four tables or figures.
Background · Case Presentation · Conclusion
Introduction · Case Presentation · Discussion · Conclusion · Consent for Publication · Declarations · References
The Case Presentation should provide relevant clinical information in chronological order.
A timeline is strongly encouraged when the sequence of symptoms, investigations, treatments, or outcomes would otherwise be difficult to follow.
Case Reports should follow the CARE reporting guideline and relevant extensions.
A completed CARE checklist should accompany the submission.
Appropriate consent for publication is required whenever an individual may reasonably be identifiable from text, images, clinical history, dates, rare characteristics, or combinations of information.
Consent for treatment or research participation is not a substitute for consent for publication.
Signed consent documentation should be retained by the authors and may be requested by the journal.
Clinical Images present a visually informative clinical, radiological, pathological, ultrasonographic, procedural, monitoring, or other finding with a concise educational message.
The purpose is not merely to display an unusual image. The image should teach a clinically relevant principle, demonstrate an important finding or complication, or provide another clear educational contribution.
The standard limit is 600 words, with no abstract, approximately 10 references, and normally no more than four image panels.
The text should briefly describe the clinical presentation, relevant image findings, diagnosis or interpretation, and principal teaching point.
Images should be publication quality.
Arrows, labels, scale bars, annotations, and panel identifiers may be used when they improve interpretation without obscuring relevant information.
Image manipulation must not alter the clinical or scientific meaning.
Consent for publication is required whenever identification is reasonably possible.
Editorials provide concise expert analysis of a subject of immediate relevance to AACC readers.
They may address newly published research, clinical controversies, methodological developments, policy issues, research integrity, education, emerging technologies, or significant developments in acute and critical care.
Editorials are usually commissioned, although unsolicited proposals may be considered.
The standard main-text limit is 1,500 words, approximately 20 references, and no more than two tables or figures. An abstract is not required.
Editorials use a flexible structure rather than IMRAD.
Opinion should be clearly distinguishable from established evidence.
Editorials may undergo editorial assessment alone or external review when independent assessment is considered appropriate.
Invitation does not guarantee publication.
Perspectives provide evidence-informed scholarly analysis of a clinical, scientific, methodological, ethical, educational, technological, or health-system issue.
A Perspective differs from a Narrative Review because its main purpose may be to develop a reasoned interpretation, conceptual framework, position, or forward-looking analysis rather than provide a broad literature synthesis.
The standard main-text limit is 2,500 words, with a maximum 200-word unstructured abstract, approximately 40 references, and no more than four tables or figures.
Claims regarding efficacy, diagnostic performance, causation, safety, epidemiology, or prognosis should be supported by appropriate evidence.
The manuscript should distinguish established evidence from inference, hypothesis, and opinion.
When the article includes a structured methodology such as a Delphi process, survey, consensus method, or evidence synthesis, the appropriate reporting guideline should be followed.
AACC considers concise scholarly correspondence relating to articles published in the journal or to topics directly relevant to acute and critical care.
The standard limit is 1,000 words, approximately 15 references, normally no more than one table or figure, and no abstract.
Letters commenting on published articles should identify the article and focus on substantive scientific, methodological, statistical, clinical, or interpretive issues.
Personal criticism or speculation concerning authors' motives is not acceptable.
The authors of the original article may be invited to respond.
Correspondence may contain limited original data when these can be reported responsibly within the format. Human or animal research presented in a Letter remains subject to the same ethical requirements that apply to full research articles.
AACC separates author-identifying information from material used during double-anonymized peer review.
Authors should therefore prepare the Title Page and Blinded Manuscript as separate files.
Additional files may include a cover letter, reporting checklist, flow diagram, figures, supplementary material, protocol, statistical analysis plan, search strategy, dataset documentation, or other supporting files.
Supplementary files relevant to scientific evaluation should normally be submitted with the first version so they are available during peer review.
The Title Page contains complete author and institutional information and is not provided to reviewers as part of the blinded manuscript.
It should include the full manuscript title, short running title, full name of every author in publication order, author affiliations, and corresponding-author information.
Each affiliation should identify the department or organizational unit, institution, city, and country.
One author must be designated as corresponding author. The corresponding author's full name, affiliation, email address, and ORCID iD should be provided.
A valid ORCID iD is required for the corresponding author and strongly encouraged for all authors.
The Title Page should also identify the article type, abstract word count, main-text word count, number of tables and figures, funding sources, competing interests, and any relevant previous presentation or preprint.
The author-contribution statement may also be provided on the Title Page or through the submission system.
The title should be accurate, specific, informative, and suitable for bibliographic retrieval.
It should represent the study actually performed and avoid promotional language.
Terms such as first, novel, breakthrough, definitive, or superior should not be used unless scientifically necessary and demonstrably justified.
The study design should be identified in the title when required or strongly recommended by the applicable reporting guideline.
Randomized trials should be identified as randomized.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses should identify the study type.
Case Reports should be identified as such.
Causal language should be avoided when the study design supports association rather than causal inference.
The blinded manuscript should not contain author names, affiliations, email addresses, institutional logos, acknowledgments revealing identity, or unnecessary identifying information.
The file name should not contain author names.
Authors should remove identifying metadata from document properties and tracked changes where feasible.
Previous publications by the authors should be cited in the same manner as publications by other researchers.
Double anonymization does not mean that scientifically important information should be concealed.
Trial-registration numbers should normally remain visible because registration is part of research transparency.
When an institutional name would directly reveal identity and is not necessary for scientific interpretation during review, it may temporarily be replaced by wording such as:
[Institutional details blinded for peer review]
Complete information must still be supplied to the Editorial Office and restored before publication.
AACC cannot guarantee complete anonymity when a manuscript relates to a registered trial, preprint, publicly available dataset, specialized research program, or previously presented work.
Manuscripts should be written in clear scientific English.
American or British English may be used, but usage should remain consistent.
The preferred manuscript format is Microsoft Word (.docx).
Manuscripts should use a simple single-column layout and a standard readable font.
Continuous line numbers and consecutive page numbers should be included to facilitate peer review.
Authors should avoid decorative formatting, multiple-column layouts, or attempts to reproduce the final AACC publication design.
Final typography and layout are applied during production.
The abstract should accurately represent the manuscript and be understandable without consulting the full text.
Citations should generally not appear in the abstract.
Abbreviations should be avoided unless necessary and defined when first used.
The abstract should not introduce results absent from the manuscript.
Principal numerical findings should be reported when central to the research question.
Terms such as significantly improved should not substitute for actual effect estimates and measures of uncertainty when these can reasonably be provided.
Conclusions should remain proportional to the study design and findings.
Trial registration information should appear at the end of the abstract for clinical trials.
Articles requiring an abstract should generally include three to six keywords.
Authors are encouraged to use appropriate Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terminology where suitable terms exist.
Keywords should improve discoverability rather than simply reproduce every word from the title.
The Introduction should establish the scientific or clinical context, identify the unresolved problem, and state the study objective or hypothesis.
It should normally be concise and should not function as an exhaustive literature review.
References should be limited to evidence directly relevant to the rationale.
Results from the current study should not be presented in the Introduction.
The final paragraph should clearly state the primary objective. Secondary objectives or hypotheses may also be identified where appropriate.
The Methods section should explain how and why the study was conducted in sufficient detail for readers to evaluate validity and, where feasible, reproduce the analysis.
Relevant subsections may include study design, setting, study period, participants, eligibility criteria, sampling, exposures, interventions, comparators, outcome definitions, measurement methods, sample-size determination, randomization, allocation concealment, blinding, data collection, missing data, statistical analysis, ethical approval, consent, and registration.
Established methods may be cited, but citation should not replace information necessary to understand how the study was actually performed.
Material deviations from a registered protocol or prespecified statistical analysis plan should be disclosed and explained.
The Statistical Analysis section should provide enough information for a statistically knowledgeable reader to understand and evaluate the analysis.
The statistical software and version should be reported.
Methods used for descriptive analysis, group comparison, modeling, repeated observations, clustered data, missing observations, confounding, interaction, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and multiplicity should be described when relevant.
Statistical methods should be selected according to the study design and characteristics of the data rather than automatically on the basis of preliminary significance tests.
For major comparative analyses, authors should report an appropriate effect estimate and measure of uncertainty, usually a 95% confidence interval.
Appropriate measures may include mean differences, standardized mean differences, risk differences, risk ratios, odds ratios, hazard ratios, correlation coefficients, regression coefficients, diagnostic likelihood ratios, and other measures suited to the research question.
P values may supplement effect estimates but should not be the sole basis for interpreting findings.
A result should not be described as clinically important solely because a P value falls below a conventional threshold.
Likewise, lack of statistical significance does not establish equivalence or absence of an effect.
Exact P values should normally be reported to three decimal places. Values below 0.001 may be reported as P < 0.001. P = 0.000 should not be reported.
Percentages should be accompanied by denominators when the denominator is not obvious.
Measures of central tendency and dispersion should reflect the distribution of the data.
Authors should report the extent of missing data and explain how missing observations were handled.
For regression and multivariable modeling, authors should describe the rationale for selecting candidate variables, model specification, treatment of continuous variables, evaluation of assumptions, interactions where relevant, and internal or external validation when applicable.
Prespecified modeling should be distinguished from data-driven variable selection.
Prespecified, exploratory, post hoc, and sensitivity analyses should be identified as such.
Subgroup analyses should state whether they were prespecified. Interaction should generally be assessed directly rather than inferred from separate significance tests within subgroups.
When multiple outcomes or comparisons materially increase the risk of misleading inference, authors should explain how multiplicity was considered.
Statistical reporting should enable readers to evaluate both the magnitude and precision of findings.
Studies involving AI or machine learning are expected to meet the same standards of clinical relevance, methodological transparency, reproducibility, and validation required of other biomedical research.
The manuscript should distinguish clearly among model development, tuning, internal validation, external validation, clinical evaluation, and implementation.
Training, tuning, validation, and test datasets should be described separately where applicable.
Authors should report eligibility criteria, data provenance, preprocessing, missing-data handling, reference standards, model specification, evaluation metrics, calibration, discrimination, uncertainty, and potential sources of bias as appropriate.
Clinical prediction-model studies using regression or machine-learning approaches should follow TRIPOD+AI.
Diagnostic-accuracy studies using artificial intelligence should follow STARD-AI where applicable.
Studies specifically developing, tuning, prompt-engineering, or evaluating large language models should follow TRIPOD-LLM and its abstract guidance where applicable.
Randomized evaluations of AI-based interventions should follow CONSORT 2025 together with relevant CONSORT-AI requirements.
Authors studying LLMs should describe the model, model version or access date where relevant, system configuration, task, prompting or prompt-engineering strategy, evaluation framework, reference standard, sampling or test dataset, and other implementation information necessary to understand or reproduce the evaluation.
Prompts or prompt templates should be supplied when they materially affect reproducibility and can be disclosed legally and ethically.
Performance within a development dataset should not be described as evidence of clinical effectiveness.
Diagnostic performance, prediction, technical performance, clinical utility, patient benefit, and causal effect are distinct concepts and should not be conflated.
Results should be presented in an order corresponding to the study objectives and Methods.
Participant numbers should be clear at relevant stages.
Reasons for exclusions, loss to follow-up, missing observations, or unavailable outcome measurements should be reported where they affect interpretation.
Authors should report absolute numbers in addition to percentages when useful.
Primary outcomes should be distinguishable from secondary and exploratory outcomes.
For comparative research, effect estimates and confidence intervals should receive appropriate emphasis.
Tables and figures should complement rather than duplicate the text.
The Results section should not contain extensive interpretation or speculation.
The Discussion should interpret the findings rather than repeat the Results.
The opening portion should summarize the principal findings in relation to the research objective.
The manuscript should place these findings in the context of relevant evidence and explain important agreements or differences.
Potential mechanisms or explanations should be identified as hypotheses when not directly tested.
Implications should remain proportional to the study design.
An observational association should not be described as proof of causation.
Diagnostic accuracy does not automatically establish clinical benefit.
Predictive performance does not establish that implementation of a prediction model improves patient outcomes.
Limitations should focus on issues that materially affect bias, precision, generalizability, interpretation, or applicability.
The Conclusion should directly answer the study objective and remain within the evidence generated by the study.
Authors should avoid overstating certainty.
Terms such as proved, demonstrated conclusively, or should be implemented should not be used when the study provides only association, preliminary evidence, or hypothesis generation.
Important uncertainty should be acknowledged.
Recommendations for future research should be specific when possible.
AACC expects authors to use the most appropriate current reporting guideline for their research design.
The EQUATOR Network should be consulted when authors are uncertain which guideline applies.
Completed reporting checklists may be required at submission.
A checklist should identify where each applicable item is reported in the manuscript.
Reporting guidelines establish minimum reporting expectations; they do not substitute for appropriate study design or analysis.
Principal standards used by AACC include:
CONSORT 2025 — randomized trials
STROBE — observational research
PRISMA 2020 — systematic reviews and meta-analyses
STARD — diagnostic-accuracy studies
STARD-AI — AI diagnostic-accuracy studies
TRIPOD+AI — clinical prediction models using regression or machine learning
TRIPOD-LLM — studies developing, tuning, prompt-engineering, or evaluating large language models
CARE — case reports
COREQ / SRQR — qualitative research
SQUIRE — quality-improvement studies
CHEERS — economic evaluations
ARRIVE — animal research
Relevant extensions should be used when applicable.
Reports of randomized clinical trials should comply with CONSORT 2025 and applicable extensions.
A completed CONSORT 2025 checklist and participant flow diagram are required at submission.
The title should identify the study as randomized.
The manuscript should describe trial design, eligibility criteria, interventions, comparator, randomization process, allocation concealment, masking where relevant, prespecified outcomes, sample-size determination, participant flow, analysis population, protocol deviations, adverse events, registration, funding, and relevant open-science information.
Reported primary outcomes should correspond to the prospectively registered trial record unless a legitimate change occurred.
Changes to registered outcomes or analysis plans should be identified and explained.
Where appropriate and legally permissible, authors are encouraged to make the trial protocol and statistical analysis plan available through supplementary material, a protocol publication, registry, or stable repository.
AACC requires prospective registration of clinical trials in an appropriate publicly accessible registry meeting internationally accepted standards.
Registration should occur at or before the time of first participant consent for enrollment.
Acceptable registries include ClinicalTrials.gov and eligible primary registries within the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).
The manuscript should provide the registry name, registration identifier, and registration date.
Ethics approval does not substitute for clinical trial registration.
Retrospective registration is not equivalent to prospective registration.
When prospective registration was not completed, this must be disclosed in the manuscript and cover letter together with an explanation. The editors will determine whether further consideration is appropriate.
Material discrepancies between the registry and manuscript concerning design, enrollment, interventions, outcomes, or analysis should be explained.
Research involving human participants, identifiable human data, medical records, or human biological material must have appropriate ethical oversight.
The manuscript should identify the responsible institutional review board or research ethics committee and provide the approval or reference number where available.
If a study received a formal exemption, waiver, or determination that review was not required, this should be reported together with the responsible authority.
Use of retrospective records does not automatically exempt research from ethics review.
The journal may request supporting documentation.
Editorial acceptance cannot retrospectively replace required ethical approval.
Authors should distinguish clearly among consent to participate in research, consent for clinical treatment, and consent for publication.
These serve different purposes and are not interchangeable.
Research involving human participants should use an appropriate informed-consent process unless consent was formally waived by a competent ethics authority.
Case Reports and Clinical Images require particular attention to consent for publication when individuals may reasonably be identifiable.
Animal research must comply with relevant institutional and national ethical requirements.
The manuscript should identify the approving animal ethics or oversight body and approval number where applicable.
Methods should provide sufficient information regarding animal welfare, experimental procedures, and efforts to minimize unnecessary suffering.
Applicable ARRIVE recommendations should be followed.
AACC applies the authorship principles described by the ICMJE.
Authorship requires all four elements: substantial contribution to conception or design, or acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; participation in drafting or critically revising the work for important intellectual content; approval of the version intended for publication; and accountability for the integrity of the work.
Acquisition of funding, routine data collection, departmental leadership, general supervision, technical assistance, or proofreading alone does not justify authorship.
Honorary, guest, gift, and ghost authorship are not acceptable.
Individuals making meaningful contributions without meeting authorship criteria should be acknowledged with their permission.
The corresponding author serves as the principal communication link between the author group and the journal.
The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all authors have reviewed and approved the submitted manuscript, the author list is accurate, required disclosures are complete, and co-authors remain informed during peer review and publication.
Corresponding-author status does not confer greater scientific ownership of the work.
Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors after submission require a clear explanation and written agreement from all affected authors.
Changes after acceptance receive additional scrutiny.
AACC does not adjudicate complex authorship disputes requiring access to institutional evidence. Such disputes may be referred to the relevant institution or research-integrity authority.
Post-publication authorship changes, when justified, require a formal correction and are not made silently.
Original Articles should provide an author-contribution statement using the CRediT Contributor Roles Taxonomy where applicable.
Relevant roles include Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data Curation, Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review & Editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project Administration, and Funding Acquisition.
More than one author may share a role and each author may hold multiple roles.
CRediT describes contributions but does not replace authorship criteria.
Individuals contributing to the work without meeting authorship criteria may be acknowledged.
Acknowledgment may include medical writing, language assistance, technical support, statistical consultation, administrative assistance, or other meaningful contributions.
Permission should be obtained from individuals named in the Acknowledgments.
Funding for professional writing or editorial assistance should be disclosed.
Acknowledgments identifying authors should not appear in the blinded manuscript.
All financial and material support relevant to the work should be disclosed.
The funding statement should identify the funder and grant number when available.
The role of the sponsor or funder in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, and the decision to submit should be described when relevant.
When the funder had no role in these activities, authors may state this explicitly.
When no specific external funding was received, an appropriate statement is:
Funding: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Every manuscript should include a competing-interest declaration.
Authors should disclose financial and non-financial relationships that could influence, or reasonably be perceived to influence, the work.
Relevant relationships may include employment, consulting, advisory roles, honoraria, grants, patents, stock ownership, institutional interests, personal relationships, and direct academic competition.
Disclosure of a competing interest does not automatically prevent publication.
When no relevant competing interests exist:
Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors should have sufficient access to the data underlying the reported findings to take responsibility for the analyses and conclusions.
Commercial, contractual, institutional, or sponsor agreements should not prevent authors from appropriately examining the data on which their published conclusions depend.
Restrictions on data access that may affect interpretation of the research should be disclosed.
The Editorial Office may ask which authors had direct access to study data, which authors conducted or verified the analysis, and whether sponsor or contractual arrangements restricted access.
Authors should retain the primary data and analytic procedures underpinning published results in accordance with applicable ethical, institutional, legal, and disciplinary requirements.
Original research manuscripts must include a Data Availability Statement.
The statement should explain whether the data underlying the findings are available, where they are available, and under what conditions access may occur.
When data are deposited publicly, the repository name and persistent identifier should be supplied whenever possible.
When de-identified data are available only on reasonable request, the appropriate contact and access conditions should be identified.
When data cannot be shared because of consent, confidentiality, contractual obligations, legal requirements, or other legitimate restrictions, the reason should be stated clearly.
Clinical trial reports should contain a data-sharing statement consistent with current ICMJE requirements.
The statement should indicate whether individual participant data will be shared, whether data will be de-identified, which supporting documents will be available, when access will begin, whether access will end, who may obtain access, for what purposes, and how access can be requested.
When a data-sharing plan appears in the trial registry, the manuscript statement should be consistent with that plan or explain material changes.
AACC encourages responsible sharing of analytical code, protocols, statistical analysis plans, data dictionaries, search strategies, model specifications, prompts or prompt templates where methodologically important, and other materials necessary to evaluate or reproduce the research.
Public repositories with persistent identifiers are preferred when materials can be shared openly.
Sensitive clinical data must not be placed in public repositories when doing so would compromise confidentiality, consent, institutional agreements, or law.
Authors must disclose substantive use of generative artificial intelligence, large language models, chatbots, image-generation systems, or comparable AI-assisted technologies in producing a submission.
AI systems cannot be listed as authors because they cannot accept responsibility for accuracy, integrity, originality, conflicts of interest, or accountability.
Human authors remain responsible for all submitted material.
Authors must independently verify AI-generated facts, references, numerical statements, code, tables, interpretations, and other outputs.
Fabricated or unverifiable references generated by AI remain the responsibility of the authors.
When AI-assisted technologies were used substantively in manuscript preparation, authors should disclose which tool was used and for what purpose in the cover letter and in the appropriate section of the manuscript.
When AI is part of the research methodology, the Methods section should report the tool or model, relevant version or access date where appropriate, scientific purpose, and methodological information necessary for evaluation and reproducibility.
Prompts, prompt templates, model settings, or other implementation details should be provided when they materially affect reproducibility.
Routine spelling correction, grammar checking, or conventional non-generative formatting tools do not require the same level of disclosure as substantive content generation.
AI-generated or AI-modified scientific and clinical images must be disclosed and must not misrepresent underlying data.
Authors are responsible for ensuring that AI use does not introduce plagiarism, copyright infringement, fabricated data, inappropriate attribution, confidentiality breaches, or misleading scientific content.
Failure to disclose substantive AI use may lead to editorial or post-publication action when the omission affects transparency or integrity.
A manuscript submitted to AACC should represent original scholarly work unless transparently identified as a legitimate secondary publication meeting accepted editorial requirements.
Authors should not submit the same manuscript simultaneously to another journal.
Material already published elsewhere is not automatically considered original merely because it has been rewritten or translated.
Related manuscripts and publications arising from the same dataset should be disclosed.
Substantial publication of the same data or analysis more than once without appropriate transparency is not acceptable.
Authors should disclose previous publications using overlapping participants, datasets, outcomes, or analyses.
Multiple publications from a large study may be legitimate when they address distinct scientific questions, but overlap must be transparent.
Artificial fragmentation of a study into multiple minimally distinct manuscripts may constitute redundant publication.
Posting a manuscript on a recognized scholarly preprint server does not, by itself, prevent consideration by AACC.
Preprints should be disclosed during submission and the identifier or link supplied.
After publication, authors are encouraged to update the preprint record with the citation and DOI of the final AACC Version of Record.
Preprint posting does not remove obligations concerning confidentiality, copyright, research integrity, ethical approval, or contractual restrictions.
AACC may use similarity-detection or text-comparison tools during editorial assessment.
Similarity percentages are not treated as automatic evidence of plagiarism.
Editors evaluate the source, extent, context, attribution, and nature of overlap.
Limited similarity in Methods may occur when standard procedures are described, but unattributed copying remains unacceptable.
Substantial reuse of an author's own previously published text without appropriate disclosure or citation may constitute inappropriate text recycling.
Plagiarism, fabricated attribution, or substantial undisclosed overlap may result in rejection or post-publication action.
Scientific and clinical images must represent the underlying data accurately.
Routine global adjustments of brightness, contrast, or color may be acceptable when they do not selectively alter interpretation.
Selective enhancement, removal, movement, obscuring, fabrication, inappropriate duplication, or misleading splicing of image elements is not acceptable.
When images from different fields, time points, experiments, or acquisitions are combined, boundaries and the nature of the combination should be clear.
Authors should retain original unprocessed image files.
AACC may request original files when image integrity requires evaluation.
Figures should be clear, scientifically necessary, and interpretable.
Each figure should be numbered in the order of first citation.
Multi-panel figures should use consistent panel labels.
Axes and units should be identified clearly.
Legends should allow interpretation without unnecessarily repeating the Results.
Photographic and other raster images should preferably be supplied at 300 dpi or higher at intended publication size.
Line art and diagrams should be supplied at higher effective resolution or in suitable vector formats where possible.
Preferred formats include TIFF, PNG, JPEG, PDF, and compatible vector formats.
Artificial enlargement of a low-resolution image does not improve its underlying quality.
Tables should be editable and should not normally be submitted only as images.
Each table should have a number and concise descriptive title.
Column headings must be clear.
Units should be provided where needed.
Abbreviations, statistical tests, symbols, and other information required for interpretation should be explained in table notes.
Percentages should be interpretable from displayed denominators.
Tables should not unnecessarily repeat information already presented in the text.
Large secondary analyses may be placed in supplementary material.
Supplementary files may contain material that improves transparency but cannot reasonably be accommodated in the main article.
Examples include complete search strategies, extended statistical analyses, additional tables, reporting checklists, protocols, statistical analysis plans, methodological appendices, data dictionaries, code, supplementary figures, prompt sets, and multimedia files.
Supplementary material should normally be submitted with the manuscript so it can be evaluated during peer review.
Information necessary to understand the primary methods or conclusions should not be hidden exclusively in supplementary material.
Authors remain responsible for accuracy, permissions, confidentiality, and anonymization.
SI units should be used when appropriate.
Conventional clinical units may also be supplied when they materially improve interpretation.
Drug names should generally use generic names. Proprietary names may be included when scientifically relevant.
Non-standard abbreviations should be defined at first use.
Excessive abbreviation should be avoided.
Established scientific nomenclature should be used for genes, proteins, microorganisms, chemicals, and other entities.
AACC uses a numbered Vancouver/NLM reference style.
References should be numbered in the order in which they first appear in the manuscript.
In-text citations should use Arabic numbers in square brackets, for example [1], [2,3], or [4–7].
Journal titles should use standard NLM abbreviations where available.
Authors are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of every reference.
Primary sources should be cited when central to a scientific claim.
Systematic reviews and guidelines may appropriately summarize larger bodies of evidence but should not automatically replace relevant primary evidence.
References must not be added for the purpose of increasing citations to specific authors, journals, institutions, research groups, or AACC.
DOIs should be provided when available and verified.
Preprints may be cited when scientifically relevant but must be clearly identified as preprints.
Retracted publications should not normally be cited as valid scientific evidence. When discussed because the retraction itself is relevant, the retracted status must be made clear.
Author AA, Author BB, Author CC. Article title. Abbreviated Journal Title. Year;Volume(Issue):Pages. doi:DOI.
Author AA, Author BB. Article title. Abbreviated Journal Title. Year;Volume:ArticleNumber. doi:DOI.
Author AA. Book title. Edition. City: Publisher; Year.
Author AA. Chapter title. In: Editor AA, Editor BB, editors. Book title. Edition. City: Publisher; Year. p. xx–xx.
For source types not illustrated above, authors should follow the principles in NLM Citing Medicine.
A complete Declarations section is required where applicable.
The standard order for the final published article is:
Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate
Consent for Publication
Trial Registration
Availability of Data and Materials
Competing Interests
Funding
Authors' Contributions
Acknowledgments
AI-Assisted Technologies Disclosure, when applicable
For items that genuinely do not apply, Not applicable may be used.
During double-anonymized review, author-identifying portions may be blinded while scientifically important information remains available.
The ethics statement should identify the responsible ethics committee or institutional review board and approval identifier when available.
The final statement should not simply state that “ethical approval was obtained” when more specific information can reasonably be supplied.
When approval was waived or a study was determined to be exempt, the responsible authority and decision should be identified.
Case Reports, Clinical Images, and other manuscripts containing potentially identifiable information should state whether appropriate consent for publication was obtained.
Where no identifiable individual information is present and consent for publication is not relevant:
Consent for publication: Not applicable.
The final article should describe individual author contributions.
For multi-author original research, CRediT terminology is preferred.
Author initials may be used to associate contributors with roles.
All authors should review and approve the final contribution statement.
A cover letter is required.
The letter should identify the manuscript title and article type and briefly explain why the work is appropriate for AACC.
It should confirm that the manuscript is not simultaneously under consideration elsewhere.
The cover letter should disclose relevant preprints, overlapping manuscripts, previous publication, trial-registration issues, major protocol deviations, unusual authorship matters, substantive AI use, or other information necessary for transparent editorial assessment.
The cover letter should not function as advertising for the manuscript.
Promotional claims such as groundbreaking, first ever, or certain to change practice should be avoided unless demonstrably necessary and supportable.
When a reporting guideline applies, authors should submit the corresponding completed checklist.
A CONSORT 2025 checklist and flow diagram are required for randomized trials.
A PRISMA 2020 checklist and flow diagram are required for systematic reviews.
A CARE checklist is required for Case Reports.
For other study designs, the relevant checklist should be supplied when required by the guideline or requested by the journal.
Page, line, or section references should indicate where checklist items are addressed.
A revised submission should contain a clean revised manuscript and a detailed response to reviewers and editors.
A marked or tracked version may also be required.
Responses should address substantive comments individually and identify where changes were made.
Authors are not required to accept every reviewer suggestion. When disagreeing, they should provide a respectful and scientifically reasoned explanation.
New analyses, outcome changes, corrections to data, methodological changes, or substantive reinterpretation introduced during revision should be disclosed transparently.
Revision does not guarantee acceptance.
After scientific acceptance, manuscripts undergo final editorial and production checks.
The Editorial Office may request complete declarations, corrected metadata, ORCID confirmation, high-resolution figures, editable tables, permissions, reporting checklists, ethics documentation, original images, or other supporting information.
Acceptance does not authorize undisclosed changes to authorship, data, analyses, or conclusions.
Substantive post-acceptance changes require editorial approval.
The corresponding author is normally responsible for coordinating review of the publication proof.
Proof review is intended to identify production errors, typographical problems, formatting issues, inaccurate metadata, and minor factual corrections.
Proofs should not be used to rewrite substantial portions of the article, add new analyses, change conclusions, or introduce previously unreported data.
Substantive proof-stage changes require editorial approval.
Responsibility for the accuracy of the published article remains with the authors.
AACC is an online-only, continuously published journal.
After completion of editorial and production procedures, accepted articles are published online as the Version of Record rather than being held solely for completion of a conventional issue.
Further information is provided on the journal's About page.
AACC is a fully open-access journal.
Published articles are freely available immediately upon publication.
Authors retain copyright, and articles are normally published under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0).
Complete copyright, reuse, licensing, and self-archiving terms are provided on the journal's Open Access page.
AACC does not charge submission fees, article processing charges, publication fees, page charges, or mandatory color-figure charges.
No payment is required for acceptance or publication under the current fee model.
Full financial information is available on the Financial Model, Revenue & Advertising page.
Manuscripts selected for external review normally undergo double-anonymized review by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise.
Additional statistical, methodological, ethical, or specialist review may be obtained when necessary.
Reviewer recommendations inform but do not determine the final editorial decision.
Detailed procedures are available in the journal's Editorial and Publication Policies.
Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe an important scientific, factual, ethical, or procedural issue has been misunderstood.
An appeal should identify the specific basis for reconsideration and provide a reasoned response.
General disagreement with an editorial outcome alone is not sufficient.
Complaints regarding editorial procedures, peer review, publication ethics, editorial conduct, or journal operations are handled under the journal's published Editorial and Publication Policies.
Before submission, authors should confirm that the correct article type has been selected and that its word limit, abstract structure, headings, reporting guideline, and required files have been followed.
The Title Page and blinded manuscript must be separate.
Required ethics, registration, data availability, funding, competing-interest, authorship, and AI disclosures must be included as applicable.
The relevant reporting checklist and flow diagram should accompany the manuscript when required.
Figures must be suitable for scientific review, tables must be editable, and supplementary material should be complete.
References should be numbered in citation order and checked against the original sources.
The corresponding author should confirm that all listed authors have reviewed and approved the submitted manuscript.
Questions concerning manuscript preparation, submission requirements, or editorial policies may be directed to:
Archives of Academic Critical Care (AACC)
Editorial Office
Email: aaccjournal@treatascholars.com
Authors should consult the current version of the reporting or publication standard relevant to their work.
AACC's principal external standards include the ICMJE Recommendations, relevant COPE guidance, the EQUATOR Network, CONSORT 2025, PRISMA 2020, STROBE, STARD, STARD-AI, TRIPOD+AI, TRIPOD-LLM, CARE, COREQ, SRQR, SQUIRE, CHEERS, ARRIVE, and NLM Citing Medicine, together with applicable extensions and subsequently updated versions.
When an established reporting standard is revised, AACC may adopt the current version for manuscripts submitted after implementation of the updated journal instructions.
Last updated: September 2026
Last updated: September 2026