This journal is open access and no charges are required for publications. All the published articles will be available online for free without time limitations in the journal archive under www.jevtm.com, archives.
The journal is published by the EVTM research group at the Örebro University Hospital (copywrites), Sweden and in cooperation with the EVTM society.
Adress for the editorial office:
the EVTM office, Ms Åsa Strandeberg
Dept of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, L building, 4th floor. Södra Grev Rosengatan, 70185, Örebro, Sweden
Tel (Switchboard) +46 19 6021000
Editor in chief: Tal M Hörer MD PhD.
Technical editor: Mr Dag Kättström email@example.com
A manuscript submitted to the Journal must constitute a unique piece of work that is not under consideration for publication, in part or whole, by another journal.
Guidelines for submission
Submissions should preferably be produced using Microsoft Word, although other formats will be considered. The submission process requires three discreet documents:
- Cover Letter
- Title Page
- Manuscript (including Abstract, Tables and Figures)
This should be written by the corresponding author and must contain the following:
- The type of manuscript submission (Original Article, Review Article etc)
- A sentence or two on the subject of the study.
- Confirmation that the study is not under consideration for publication by another journal.
- Confirmation that all of the authors have made a substantial contribution to the manuscript and that they have seen and approved the submission draft.
- A conflict-of-interest statement regarding the authors. Where there is none, this should be clearly stated. More information can be found on ethical and publication ethics of the JEVTM.
- A clear statement that the authos follow the ethical guidlines as stated in the ethical section of the JEVTM.
This should consist of the following:
- Title: This should be concise and reflect the type and purpose of the study.
- Authors: These should be listed in order for publication, with first name, initials and surname, along with highest academic degree.
- Affiliations: The institution(s) that the authors are affiliated with should be listed. A full address is not required, but enough to ensure identification.
- Corresponding Author: This individual should be clearly identified, along with full institutional address and e-mail address.
- Author Contributions: All authors are expected to have substantially contributed to the study and manuscript writing.
- Funding Declaration: Any grant funding should be listed.
- Presentation: The meeting where any of the submitted data was presented should be listed.
This should consist of text in 12 pts, double spaced with a justified margin, written in US English. While each article type has specified headings, the use of sub-headings is encouraged to aid clarity. These should be formatted as follows:
- Main Heading Bold
- Sub-Heading Bold and Italicized
- Sub-sub-heading Italicized
The abstract should be a maximum of 250 words and consist of the following headings:
Manuscripts reporting unique scientific studies should be no longer than 3000 words. They should consist of the following sections:
- Introduction: This should concisely present the background to the problem that the study hopes to answer. A hypothesis should be clearly stated.
- Methods: This section should be suitably detailed to permit replication of the study. The regulatory permissions for the study should also be detailed, e.g. Institutional Review Board, ethical committee etc... including a protocol/registration number. Where animal research has been undertaken, the institutional animal care and use guidelines that have been followed should be clearly stated.
- Results: These should involve the reporting of the salient positive and negative findings of the study in clear language. The use of images, figures and tables are encouraged, of which the data should not be duplicated in the prose. There is no maximum number of figures or tables, but these should be appropriate to the study. should be reported to three decimal places.
- Discussion: This should place the reported study findings in the context of the literature. Limitations and future direction should also be discussed. Authors must be careful to ensure that conclusions are not overstated and are supported by data.
Short, focused Editorials on an important aspect of endovascular hemorrhage control are welcomed. These should endeavor to bring attention to an important topic, or accompany an article published within the journal. The latter will be invited by the Editor. Submitted manuscripts should be no longer than 1500 words.
Narrative Review Articles
This style of article can afford the author considerable latitude in examining a pertinent topic in endovascular hemorrhage control. The literature should be examined objectively and presented to the reader in the context of current understanding. The author should be able to synthesize a narrative, which leaves the reader with a good understanding of an emerging or controversial topic. The author is welcome (and encouraged) to express an opinion, but where this is the case, it should be clearly stated.
Articles should be a maximum of 5000 words. There is no formal structure; however, the use of logical headings/sub-headings is important to enable readers to follow the article easily. The abstract should also be unstructured and be a maximum of 150 words.
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
Where there is a topic within the subject area of endovascular hemorrhage control that has a substantial evidence base, a Systematic Review with/without a Meta-Analysis is considered more appropriate than a narrative review article. These articles should follow the methodology established by PRISMA. Submission should be a maximum of 5000 words and authors should include a PRISMA checklist in their submission. The overall aim is to provide a pooled analysis that enables firm conclusions to be drawn on a particular subject.
Tips and Techniques
In the evolving world of endovascular hemorrhage control, the advice and opinion of actively practicing clinicians is of great importance. Both solicited and unsolicited submissions are reviewed, both on major or minor components on endovascular techniuqes. This can be presented in the context of â€œevidenceâ€ or just as an opinion. The use of quality images and diagrams is encouraged. The submission should be a maximum of 1500 words.
Images of Interest
Rather than accept case reports, the Journal accepts images of interest, which include a short commentary. The aim of this section is to demonstrate and illustrate an educational message, rather than just to demonstrate dramatic pathology. Images can be submitted as a multi-panel with a series of scans/photographs in order to support the message presented in the narrative. The submission should be a maximum of 250 words.
Support for Language and Article Content
The aim of the Journal, in addition to the dissemination of peer-reviewed evidence, is to support English-second-language authors and early career scientists. Provided that a submitted manuscript has good scientific merit, the Journal is able to provide a free language editing service. Furthermore, where article content would benefit from high-quality figures, artwork can be commissioned to support the publication.
References should follow the Vancouver Style and should be noted in the text numerically in sequence within the text using square brackets, eg:  or [1,2] or [1;3].
An example article:
- Stannard W, Rutman A, Wallis C, O'Callaghan C. Central microtubular agenesis causing primary ciliary dyskinesia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2004;169:634.
Where there are more than six authors, the first three should be included followed by et al.
Supplementary Digital Content
Where manuscripts would benefit from additional content (datasets, images, video), which does not necessarily need inclusion in the published article, supplementary digital content (SDC) can be hosted. This includes, but is not limited to, tables, figures or video. Authors should include in their cover letter a description of this content and its purpose.
Ethical & Legal Considerations
A submitted manuscript must be an original contribution not previously published (except as an abstract and should be indicated); cannot be under consideration for publication in other journals; and, if accepted, must not be published or reproduced elsewhere. All authors are obliged to provide reractions or corrections of mistakes after review process. The final responsibility for the scientific accuracy and validity of published manuscripts rests with the authors, not with the Journal, its editors, or the publisher (Örebro University Hospital).
Detailed ethical guidelines
Maintaining integrity of the research and its presentation is helped by following the rules of good scientific practice, which is outlined here:
- The manuscript should not be submitted to more than one journal for simultaneous consideration.
- The submitted work should be original and should not have been published elsewhere in any form or language (partially or in full), unless the new work concerns an expansion of previous work. (Please provide transparency on the re-use of material to avoid the concerns about text-recycling (‘self-plagiarism’).
- A single study should not be split up into several parts to increase the quantity of submissions and submitted to various journals or to one journal over time (i.e. ‘salami-slicing/publishing’).
- Concurrent or secondary publication is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. Examples include: translations or a manuscript that is intended for a different group of readers.
- Results should be presented clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation (including image based manipulation). Authors should adhere to discipline-specific rules for acquiring, selecting and processing data.
- No data, text, or theories by others are presented as if they were the author’s own (‘plagiarism’). Proper acknowledgements to other works must be given (this includes material that is closely copied (near verbatim), summarized and/or paraphrased), quotation marks (to indicate words taken from another source) are used for verbatim copying of material, and permissions secured for material that is copyrighted.
- Authors should avoid untrue statements about an entity (who can be an individual person or a company) or descriptions of their behavior or actions that could potentially be seen as personal attacks or allegations about that person.
- Authors are strongly advised to ensure the author group, the Corresponding Author, and the order of authors are all correct at submission. Adding and/or deleting authors during the revision stages is generally not permitted, but in some cases may be warranted. Reasons for changes in authorship should be explained in detail. Please note that changes to authorship cannot be made after acceptance of a manuscript.
In order to maintain the highest scientific standards, the journal follows strict quality standards:
Upon request authors should be prepared to send relevant documentation or data in order to verify the validity of the results presented. This could be in the form of raw data, samples, records, etc. Sensitive information in the form of confidential or proprietary data is excluded.
If there is suspicion of misbehavior or alleged fraud the Journal and/or Publisher will carry out an investigation following COPE guidelines. If, after investigation, there are valid concerns, the author(s) concerned will be contacted under their given e-mail address and given an opportunity to address the issue. Depending on the situation, this may result in the Journal’s and/or Publisher’s implementation of the following measures, including, but not limited to:
If the manuscript is still under consideration, it may be rejected and returned to the author.
If the article has already been published online, depending on the nature and severity of the infraction:
- an erratum/correction may be placed with the article
- an expression of concern may be placed with the article
- or in severe cases retraction of the article may occur.
The reason will be given in the published erratum/correction, expression of concern or retraction note. Please note that retraction means that the article is maintained on the platform, watermarked “retracted” and the explanation for the retraction is provided in a note linked to the watermarked article.
Authors have an obligation to correct mistakes once they discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their published article. The author(s) is/are requested to contact the journal and explain in what sense the error is impacting the article. A decision on how to correct the literature will depend on the nature of the error. This may be a correction or retraction. The retraction note should provide transparency which parts of the article are impacted by the error.
Editors of JEVTM has responsibilities toward the authors who provide the content of the journals, the peer reviewers who comment on the suitability of manuscripts for publication, the journal’s readers and the scientific community, the owners/publishers of the journals, and the public as a whole.
Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of scientific endeavour.
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
Reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.
Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
Patient Anonymity and Informed Consent
It is the authors's responsibility to ensure that a patient's anonymity is protected, to verify that any experimental investigation with human subjects reported in the manuscript was performed with informed consent and follows all the guidelines for experimental investigation with human subjects required by the institution(s) with which all the authors are affiliated and/or ethical committee processing. Authors are asked to comply with the general guidelines for integrity protection, as listed by the health ministries in the EU, the EU commission and US department of health. (example: https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/forprofessionals/special-topics/research/index.html). Authors should mask patient's eyes and always remove patient names from figures as well as genital organs as possible.
Protection of Human Subjects & Animals in Research
For original articles in the Journal that report research involving animals, the corresponding author must confirm that all experiments were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations (i.e. IACUC guidelines and federal regulations, or EU guidelines for animal research). One recommended documenting animals studies, might be the ARRIVE reporting guidelines (PLoS Bio 8(6), e1000412,2010). We encourage to follow the RRR principles of animal studies in medicine: https://www.feam.eu/wp-content/uploads/FEAM-Forum_Round-table-animals_Report_Final.pdf)
All studies of human subjects must contain a statement within the Methods section indicating approval of the study by an institutional review body (i.e. Institutional Review Board or ethical committee), and, if appropriate, a statement confirming that informed consent was obtained from all subjects if possible. If no legally informed consent can be obtained, such as in research carried out with human subjects receiving emergency treatment, authors should indicate as possible if a waiver of regulatory requirements for obtaining and documenting informed consent applies.
All submissions are screened for inappropriate image manipulation, plagiarism, duplicate publication and other issues that violate research ethics. Depending on the outcome of these investigations, the Journal may decide to publish errata, or, in cases of serious scientific misconduct, ask authors to retract their paper or to impose retraction on them.
Patients have a right to privacy that should not be infringed without informed consent. Identifying information, including patients' names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, and pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. Informed consent for this purpose requires that a patient who is identifiable be shown the manuscript to be published. Authors should identify Individuals who provide writing assistance and disclose the funding source for this assistance.
Identifying details should be omitted if they are not essential. Complete anonymity is difficult to achieve, however, and informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of patients is inadequate protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity, such as in genetic pedigrees, authors should provide assurance that alterations do not distort scientific meaning and editors should so note.
The requirement for informed consent should be included in the journal's instructions for authors. When informed consent has been obtained it should be indicated in the published article.
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors ("Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals") -- February 2006
JEVTM follows guidelines and best practices published by professional organizations, including Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals by ICMJE, and Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (joint statement by COPE, DOAJ, WAME and OASPA).
Upon acceptance of your article you will receive an Author Query Application where you can sign the Copyright Transfer Statement.
Once the Author Query Application has been completed, your article will be processed and you will receive the proofs.
Authors will be asked to transfer copyright of the article to the Publisher (or grant the Publisher exclusive publication and dissemination rights). This will ensure the widest possible protection and dissemination of information under copyright laws.
The purpose of the proof is to check for typesetting or conversion errors and the completeness and accuracy of the text, tables and figures. Substantial changes in content, e.g., new results, corrected values, title and authorship, are not allowed without the approval of the Editor.
After online publication, further changes can only be made in the form of an Erratum, which will be hyperlinked to the article.
The article will be published online after receipt of the corrected proofs. This is the official first publication citable with the DOI. After release of the printed version, the paper can also be cited by issue and page numbers.
All articles in JEVTM are open access and upon acceptance are immediately and permanently free for everyone to read and download.
- This is a report of a formal basic science or clinical research study
- Maximum word count of 3000 words.
Narrative Review Article
- This should present an overview of the literature on a subject of relevance to endovascular hemorrhage control
- Maximum word count of 5000 words.
Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
- On subjects where there is sufficient evidence, a systematic review (with or without) a meta-analysis is encouraged over a narrative review.
- Maximum word count of 5000 words.
Tips and Techniques
- This type of article permits the author to write from experience, rather than from the published literature.
- Articles explaining how to approach certain problems or how to accomplish certain maneuvers are welcomed.
- Maximum word count of 1500 words.
Images of Interest
- We are keen to present radiological image(s) accompanied by a short narrative, that have an educational message.
- Short case report with review of the current literature