Submissions

Definition and Scope

Narrative Review Articles are comprehensive, evidence-informed scholarly publications that critically examine, interpret, and synthesize existing scientific knowledge on topics of significant clinical, surgical, educational, or scientific relevance.

These articles aim to provide an authoritative overview of current evidence, clarify established concepts, critically discuss controversies, identify knowledge gaps, and highlight implications for clinical practice and future research.

Unlike Systematic Reviews, Narrative Reviews do not require a fully systematic, reproducible literature search, predefined study eligibility criteria, a formal risk-of-bias assessment, or quantitative meta-analysis.

However, Narrative Reviews must demonstrate scientific accuracy, critical reasoning, appropriate referencing, balanced interpretation, and transparency regarding the approach used to identify and select relevant literature.

AJTES welcomes Narrative Reviews addressing trauma care, emergency surgery, acute care surgery, critical care, perioperative management, surgical techniques, patient safety, and related medical disciplines.

Manuscripts should provide meaningful scientific or educational insights rather than merely summarize previously published findings.

Suitable Topics

Narrative Reviews may address:

• Current concepts and advances in trauma and emergency surgery.
• Diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for acute surgical conditions.
• Surgical anatomy and clinically relevant anatomical variations.
• Operative techniques and evolving surgical approaches.
• Management of traumatic injuries and postoperative complications.
• Advances in diagnostic imaging and interventional procedures.
• Perioperative and critical care management.
• Patient safety, surgical outcomes, and complication prevention.
• Clinical controversies and emerging treatment strategies.
• Trauma systems and organization of emergency surgical care.
• Surgical education, professional training, and simulation.
• Emerging technologies and innovations in acute care surgery.

Scientific and Methodological Requirements

Narrative Reviews must have a clearly defined scope, scientific rationale, and educational or clinical objective.

Authors should critically evaluate and integrate relevant evidence from reliable scientific sources, including original research studies, systematic reviews, clinical practice guidelines, consensus statements, and other appropriate publications.

The manuscript should:

• Clearly explain the clinical or scientific importance of the topic.
• State the objectives and scope of the review.
• Describe the approach used to identify and select relevant literature.
• Prioritize relevant, reliable, and appropriately current scientific evidence.
• Distinguish established findings from emerging hypotheses and expert interpretations.
• Critically discuss conflicting findings and areas of uncertainty.
• Evaluate the methodological strengths and limitations of the cited evidence.
• Avoid selective citation and unsupported generalizations.
• Identify important knowledge gaps and future research priorities.
• Provide balanced, evidence-informed conclusions.

A formal systematic search is not mandatory. Nevertheless, authors are encouraged to describe the databases searched, approximate search period, principal search terms, and approach to literature selection when appropriate.

The literature selection approach must not be represented as exhaustive or systematic unless the corresponding methodology has actually been performed.

Manuscript Structure

Narrative Reviews should follow a flexible, logically organized structure with appropriate thematic headings.

1. Title Page

A separate title page containing the manuscript title, full author names, institutional affiliations, corresponding author information, and required declarations.

The title should clearly identify the article as a Narrative Review when appropriate.

2. Unstructured Abstract

A concise summary of the topic, rationale, review objectives, principal themes, and clinical or scientific implications.

3. Keywords

Three to six relevant keywords, preferably aligned with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH).

4. Introduction

The clinical or scientific background, significance of the topic, relevant knowledge gaps, and objectives of the review.

5. Literature Search Approach (Recommended)

A concise description of how relevant literature was identified, including information sources, search concepts, approximate date range, and selection approach, where applicable.

This section is encouraged to improve transparency but does not convert a Narrative Review into a Systematic Review.

6. Main Review / Thematic Discussion

A structured and critical synthesis of the available evidence, organized into relevant thematic sections.

Depending on the topic, these sections may address epidemiology, pathophysiology, anatomical considerations, diagnosis, treatment, surgical management, complications, outcomes, or preventive strategies.

7. Clinical or Surgical Implications

A focused discussion of how current evidence applies to clinical decision-making, surgical practice, patient safety, and healthcare outcomes.

8. Limitations and Evidence Gaps

A critical discussion of key limitations in the available literature, unresolved controversies, evidence uncertainty, and limitations of the narrative review approach.

9. Future Directions

Identification of priorities for future clinical research, surgical innovation, methodological development, or healthcare improvement, where appropriate.

10. Conclusions

A concise, evidence-informed synthesis of the principal findings and their implications for clinical practice or future research.

11. Declarations

Author contributions, conflicts of interest, funding, data availability where applicable, and other required disclosures.

12. References

Relevant scientific publications accurately cited and formatted according to AJTES referencing requirements.

Abstract Requirements

An unstructured abstract of up to 350 words is required.

The abstract should briefly communicate:

• The clinical or scientific background and significance of the topic.
• The principal objectives and scope of the review.
• The main themes or evidence-based observations.
• Important controversies or knowledge gaps, where relevant.
• The principal clinical, surgical, educational, or scientific implications.
• The main conclusions.

The abstract must be presented as continuous prose without mandatory section headings.

It must accurately reflect the manuscript and must not imply that a formal systematic review or meta-analysis was conducted unless such methodology was actually performed.

Literature Search and Evidence Selection

Although a comprehensive systematic search is not mandatory, transparency in literature identification and selection is strongly encouraged.

Authors should describe, where applicable:

• The bibliographic databases or information sources consulted.
• The principal search terms or concepts.
• The approximate period covered by the literature search.
• The general criteria used to prioritize relevant publications.
• The use of original research, systematic reviews, guidelines, or consensus statements.
• Any relevant limitations of the literature selection approach.

Authors must not selectively cite studies solely because they support a preferred interpretation.

Where conflicting evidence exists, relevant alternative findings should be acknowledged and critically discussed.

References should support the principal scientific arguments and reflect an appropriate balance of foundational and recent literature.

Reporting Guidelines and Quality Assessment

There is no universally mandated reporting checklist specifically developed for all Narrative Reviews.

Authors are encouraged to follow the principles of the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA) as a framework for improving manuscript quality.

The SANRA framework addresses six key aspects:

1. Justification of the article's importance.
2. Clear statement of the review's objectives.
3. Description of the literature search.
4. Appropriate referencing.
5. Scientific reasoning and presentation of evidence.
6. Appropriate presentation of relevant outcome data.

SANRA is a quality-assessment instrument and should not be represented as a mandatory reporting guideline equivalent to PRISMA 2020.

The PRISMA checklist and flow diagram are not required for conventional Narrative Reviews.

If a manuscript uses a formal systematic review methodology, including predefined eligibility criteria, reproducible searching, systematic study selection, and critical appraisal, authors should consider submitting it under the Systematic Review category.

Protocol Registration

Protocol registration is not ordinarily required for conventional Narrative Reviews.

Authors may use a prespecified review plan or publicly available protocol to improve transparency.

However, prospective registration in registries such as PROSPERO is intended for eligible systematic review protocols and is not a routine requirement for Narrative Reviews.

A Narrative Review should not be described as a registered Systematic Review unless the relevant systematic methodology and registration requirements have been fulfilled.

Ethical Considerations and Research Integrity

Narrative Reviews based exclusively on published, publicly available, non-identifiable scientific literature do not ordinarily require new ethics committee approval.

However, authors must comply with applicable ethical, legal, institutional, and publication requirements if the manuscript includes unpublished confidential material, identifiable patient information, or original patient-level data.

All submissions must comply with AJTES policies on originality, authorship, plagiarism, duplicate publication, conflicts of interest, funding disclosure, scientific integrity, and responsible use of artificial intelligence.

Previously published images, tables, and illustrations must be appropriately cited, and reproduction or adaptation permission must be obtained when required.

Tables, Figures, and Illustrations

Tables and figures should enhance the scientific and educational value of the review.

Suitable visual materials may include:

• Anatomical or surgical illustrations.
• Diagnostic and treatment algorithms.
• Comparative summaries of clinical evidence.
• Classification systems.
• Imaging findings and procedural illustrations.
• Tables summarizing major studies, interventions, or clinical recommendations.

All tables and figures must be numbered consecutively, cited in the manuscript, and accompanied by informative titles or legends.

Images must comply with applicable copyright, licensing, confidentiality, and patient consent requirements.

Highlights and Running Title

Highlights: Authors must provide 3–5 concise statements summarizing the principal evidence-based findings, clinical implications, or educational messages. Each highlight must not exceed 85 characters, including spaces.

Running Title: A concise running title is required, with a maximum of 50 characters, excluding the author-name prefix used in AJTES page headers.

Editorial Assessment and Peer Review

All Narrative Reviews undergo preliminary editorial assessment to evaluate scientific relevance, originality of synthesis, completeness of the literature discussion, balance of evidence, clarity, and compliance with journal requirements.

Manuscripts considered suitable undergo external double-anonymized peer review, ordinarily involving at least two independent reviewers.

Reviewers may consider the SANRA framework when assessing the quality of the manuscript.

The final editorial decision is based on scientific quality, clinical or educational relevance, strength of critical analysis, reviewer recommendations, and compliance with AJTES editorial policies.

Manuscript Requirements

 Word-count policy: The word limit applies to the main manuscript text, excluding the title page, abstract, references, tables, figure legends, and supplementary materials.

Editorial discretion: Exceptions to word, reference, or figure limits may be considered when scientifically justified and approved by the Editorial Office.

Case Report

Definition and Scope

Case Reports are original, clinically focused scholarly publications describing individual patient cases that provide novel, unusual, or particularly instructive insights relevant to trauma care, emergency surgery, acute care surgery, and related medical disciplines.

They aim to communicate valuable clinical observations, highlight diagnostic or therapeutic challenges, describe unexpected complications, or illustrate important lessons that may improve clinical reasoning, surgical decision-making, patient safety, and future research.

A publishable Case Report must provide a clearly identifiable educational or scientific contribution beyond the routine description of a clinical condition.

Although individual case observations may generate hypotheses and inform future research, they cannot independently establish causality, treatment effectiveness, or generalizable clinical recommendations.

Suitable Topics

Case Reports may address:

• Rare traumatic injuries or emergency surgical conditions.
• Unusual or atypical clinical presentations.
• Diagnostic challenges, pitfalls, or unexpected findings.
• Innovative surgical techniques or therapeutic approaches.
• Uncommon postoperative or post-traumatic complications.
• Unexpected clinical outcomes or adverse events.
• Rare anatomical variations with surgical implications.
• Unusual radiological, endoscopic, or histopathological findings.
• Complex clinical decision-making in emergency or acute care settings.
• Important clinical lessons arising from multidisciplinary management.

Reports describing common conditions managed conventionally, without a distinctive clinical observation or clear educational contribution, are generally not considered suitable for publication.

Scientific and Clinical Requirements

Case Reports must present an accurate, coherent, and sufficiently detailed account of the patient's clinical course.

Authors should clearly identify the educational significance of the case and distinguish directly observed clinical findings from interpretation or speculation.

The manuscript should provide:

• Relevant patient information and clinical history.
• Presenting symptoms and significant physical findings.
• Diagnostic investigations and differential diagnoses.
• Important diagnostic or therapeutic challenges.
• Surgical or non-surgical interventions.
• Clinical reasoning supporting major management decisions.
• Post-treatment monitoring and follow-up.
• Patient outcomes and any unexpected or adverse events.
• A chronological clinical timeline.
• Relevant comparisons with previously published literature.
• A clear statement of the principal clinical learning points.

Patient information must be presented objectively, without unnecessary identifying details or unsupported causal conclusions.

Manuscript Structure

Case Reports must follow the CARE (CAse REport) reporting guidelines and include the following components:

1. Title Page

A separate title page containing the manuscript title, full author names, institutional affiliations, corresponding author information, and required declarations.

The title should clearly identify the manuscript as a Case Report.

2. Unstructured Abstract

Provide a concise summary of the clinical background, patient presentation, key diagnostic findings, management, outcome, and main educational message.

3. Keywords

Three to six relevant keywords, preferably aligned with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). The term "Case Report" should be included.

4. Introduction

A brief presentation of the clinical problem, relevant scientific background, and the specific reason the case warrants publication.

5. Case Presentation

A detailed, chronological description of the clinical course, including:

• Patient information and relevant medical history.
• Presenting complaints and clinical findings.
• Diagnostic assessment and differential diagnosis.
• Relevant laboratory, imaging, or pathological findings.
• Therapeutic interventions and surgical procedures.
• Clinical timeline.
• Follow-up, outcomes, and complications.

The clinical timeline should summarize the key events and may be presented as a table or figure.

6. Discussion

A critical interpretation of the clinical findings in the context of current scientific literature.

The discussion should emphasize diagnostic and therapeutic reasoning, the novelty or educational significance of the case, relevant limitations, and implications for clinical practice.

7. Conclusions

A concise summary of the principal clinical lesson and its potential relevance to diagnosis, treatment, surgical management, or patient safety.

8. Patient Perspective

A brief description of the patient's experience or perspective may be included when obtainable and appropriate.

9. Patient Consent Statement

An explicit declaration confirming that written informed consent for publication was obtained from the patient or an appropriately authorized legal representative, in accordance with AJTES policy.

10. Declarations

Applicable statements regarding ethical approval or exemption, informed consent, author contributions, conflicts of interest, funding, data availability, and other relevant disclosures.

11. References

Relevant scientific publications supporting the discussion and clinical interpretation.

Abstract Requirements

An unstructured abstract of up to 250 words is required.

Although no formal section headings are required, the abstract should include:

• Clinical background and significance.
• Principal patient presentation and findings.
• Diagnostic assessment.
• Therapeutic or surgical management.
• Clinical outcome.
• Main educational conclusion.

The abstract must accurately reflect the case and avoid unsupported generalizations.

Reporting Guidelines

All Case Reports must be prepared in accordance with the CARE reporting guidelines.

Authors must submit a completed CARE checklist identifying where the relevant reporting items are addressed in the manuscript.

The CARE framework includes:

• Title and keywords.
• Abstract and introduction.
• Patient information and clinical findings.
• Clinical timeline.
• Diagnostic assessment.
• Therapeutic interventions.
• Follow-up and outcomes.
• Discussion.
• Patient perspective, where obtainable.
• Informed consent.

The manuscript must provide sufficient information to support clinical interpretation and methodological transparency.

PRISMA 2020 is not applicable to conventional Case Reports, as these publications do not constitute systematic reviews.

Patient Consent for Publication

Written informed consent for publication is mandatory for all Case Reports submitted to AJTES under the journal's proposed editorial policy.

Consent must be obtained from the patient or, where legally appropriate, an authorized representative before manuscript submission.

The consent must specifically address publication of the clinical information and any relevant images, with an explanation of the potential availability of the publication online.

Consent for treatment or hospital admission does not automatically constitute consent for scientific publication.

Authors must confirm that appropriate written consent has been obtained and retained in accordance with applicable institutional, legal, and journal requirements.

The Editorial Office may request documentary verification of consent.

Where valid publication consent cannot be obtained, the Case Report will not be considered for publication under this AJTES policy.

Patient Confidentiality and Image Anonymization

All direct and indirect patient identifiers must be removed unless disclosure is scientifically essential, legally permissible, and specifically covered by appropriate consent.

Identifying information includes:

• Patient names, initials, and identification numbers.
• Dates of birth and unnecessary identifying dates.
• Hospital registration numbers.
• Facial or other recognizable characteristics.
• Identifying details within clinical photographs.
• Burned-in information on CT, MRI, radiographic, or ultrasound images.
• Identifying metadata contained in digital files.

Masking the eyes in a facial photograph is not considered sufficient to ensure patient anonymity.

Image processing must preserve diagnostic and anatomical accuracy and must not misrepresent the clinical findings.

Ethical Approval

Case Reports must comply with applicable institutional ethics requirements, national legislation, and international principles of medical publication ethics.

Formal ethics committee approval is not universally required for every individual Case Report.

Authors must state whether ethical approval was required and, where applicable, provide the name of the approving ethics committee, approval number, and date.

When the responsible institution or ethics committee has determined that approval is unnecessary or an exemption applies, the manuscript should report that determination.

Ethics committee approval and patient consent for publication are separate requirements.

Protocol Registration

Protocol registration is not ordinarily required for conventional Case Reports.

Case Reports are descriptive clinical publications and do not normally meet the criteria for prospective registration of a clinical trial or systematic review protocol.

If a submission includes an interventional clinical study or another design requiring registration, the manuscript should be submitted under the appropriate article category and comply with the corresponding registration requirements.

Clinical Images, Tables, and Figures

Clinical photographs, diagnostic images, operative illustrations, and pathological figures must be original or appropriately licensed, scientifically accurate, and of sufficient quality for publication.

All figures must be numbered consecutively, cited within the manuscript, and accompanied by informative legends.

Relevant anatomical structures, pathological findings, and surgical details should be clearly identified where appropriate.

Tables should provide information that supports the clinical narrative without unnecessary duplication.

Highlights and Running Title

Highlights: Authors must provide 3–5 concise statements summarizing the principal clinical observations or educational lessons. Each highlight must not exceed 85 characters, including spaces.

Running Title: A concise running title is required, with a maximum of 50 characters, excluding the author-name prefix used in AJTES page headers.

Editorial Assessment and Peer Review

All Case Reports undergo preliminary editorial screening to assess clinical relevance, originality, educational value, reporting completeness, ethical compliance, and adherence to journal requirements.

Manuscripts considered suitable for further evaluation undergo double-anonymized external peer review, ordinarily involving at least two independent reviewers.

The final editorial decision is based on clinical significance, scientific accuracy, educational contribution, completeness of reporting, reviewer recommendations, and compliance with AJTES editorial policies.

Manuscript Requirements

 Word-count policy: The word limit applies to the main manuscript text and excludes the title page, abstract, references, tables, figure legends, and supplementary materials.

Editorial discretion: Exceptions to word, reference, or figure limits may be considered when scientifically justified and approved by the Editorial Office.

Definition and Scope

Short Reports are concise, original scientific contributions presenting focused, methodologically sound, and clinically or scientifically relevant research findings that can be communicated effectively within a shorter manuscript format.

This category is intended for small but complete studies, focused clinical investigations, preliminary findings supported by adequate data, methodological evaluations, or narrowly defined research questions that warrant timely scientific communication.

Short Reports may include original clinical, epidemiological, observational, experimental, translational, or health-services research relevant to trauma care, emergency surgery, acute care surgery, and related medical disciplines.

Unlike Original Research Articles, Short Reports emphasize a limited number of clearly defined research objectives and principal findings. However, they must meet the same fundamental standards of scientific validity, methodological transparency, ethical compliance, statistical rigor, and research integrity.

A Short Report is a condensed research article, not an incomplete study.

Suitable Study Designs and Topics

Short Reports may include:

• Focused prospective or retrospective clinical studies.
• Small-scale observational investigations.
• Pilot and feasibility studies with clearly defined objectives.
• Preliminary findings supported by complete and appropriately analyzed data.
• Focused epidemiological investigations.
• Clinical outcomes and quality improvement research.
• Diagnostic or methodological evaluations.
• Brief analyses of institutional registries or clinical datasets.
• Experimental or translational investigations.
• Focused evaluations of surgical techniques, diagnostic pathways, or clinical management strategies.

Submissions must demonstrate scientific originality, clinical relevance, and sufficient methodological completeness to support the reported findings.

Preliminary results should be clearly identified as such, and conclusions must remain proportionate to the sample size, study design, and strength of the evidence.

Scientific and Methodological Requirements

Short Reports must address a clearly defined research question or hypothesis and provide sufficient methodological detail to permit critical appraisal and interpretation.

Authors should describe the study design, setting, population or experimental material, eligibility criteria, data collection methods, primary outcomes, and statistical analyses, as applicable.

The manuscript should report:

• A clearly defined study objective or hypothesis.
• An appropriate and transparent research design.
• A description of the study population and selection criteria.
• Clearly defined outcome measures.
• Appropriate statistical methods and numerical findings.
• Relevant measures of uncertainty, where applicable.
• Study limitations and potential sources of bias.
• Conclusions directly supported by the reported results.

Authors must not omit essential methodological information or selectively report findings solely to meet the prescribed word limit.

Where additional methodological information is necessary, supplementary materials may be submitted in accordance with AJTES policies.

Manuscript Structure

Short Reports should generally follow a condensed IMRaD structure (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion).

The recommended components are:

1. Title Page

Manuscript title, author names, institutional affiliations, corresponding author information, and required declarations.

2. Unstructured Abstract

A concise summary of the study background, objective, methods, principal results, and conclusions, presented as continuous prose.

3. Keywords

Three to six relevant keywords, preferably aligned with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH).

4. Introduction

A brief explanation of the scientific background, knowledge gap, clinical relevance, and research objective.

5. Materials and Methods

A focused but sufficiently detailed description of study design, setting, participants, selection criteria, interventions or measurements, outcome definitions, statistical analyses, and ethical considerations.

6. Results

Objective presentation of the principal findings, supported by relevant numerical data, statistical estimates, tables, or figures.

7. Discussion

Concise interpretation of the findings in relation to existing evidence, clinical implications, methodological limitations, and potential directions for further research.

8. Conclusions

A brief statement of the principal findings and their scientific or clinical relevance, avoiding unsupported generalizations.

9. Declarations

Applicable statements concerning ethical approval, informed consent, trial registration, author contributions, funding, conflicts of interest, data availability, and other required disclosures.

10. References

A focused selection of relevant and scientifically reliable references supporting the study.

Abstract Requirements

An unstructured abstract of up to 250 words is required.

Although formal headings are not required, the abstract should clearly communicate:

• The scientific or clinical background.
• The primary research objective.
• The study design and essential methods.
• The principal findings, including relevant numerical results.
• The main conclusions and their clinical or scientific implications.

The abstract must be presented as continuous prose without mandatory section headings.

It must accurately reflect the manuscript and should not include conclusions unsupported by the reported data.

For registered clinical trials, the trial registration information must be reported in accordance with applicable ICMJE recommendations.

Research Reporting Guidelines

Short Reports must follow the internationally recognized reporting guideline appropriate to the underlying study design.

Applicable guidelines include:

• CONSORT 2025: Randomized controlled trials.
• STROBE: Observational studies, including cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies.
• STARD: Diagnostic accuracy studies.
• TREND: Nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions, where applicable.
• ARRIVE 2.0: Animal research.
• TRIPOD / TRIPOD+AI: Clinical prediction model studies, including applicable artificial intelligence models.
• SQUIRE 2.0: Healthcare quality improvement studies, where applicable.

Authors must submit the appropriate reporting checklist when required by the study design.

The shortened article format does not exempt authors from reporting essential methodological and statistical information.

PRISMA 2020 is not routinely applicable to Short Reports presenting primary research. Manuscripts primarily reporting a systematic review or meta-analysis should be submitted under the corresponding article category.

Protocol Registration

Prospective registration is required for clinical trials meeting the applicable ICMJE definition and registration requirements.

The trial registry name, registration number, and relevant registration details must be provided.

For observational studies and other non-trial investigations, protocol registration is encouraged where appropriate but is not ordinarily mandatory unless required by applicable regulations, funding conditions, or journal policy.

Authors should identify any registered protocol or prespecified analysis plan when available.

Ethical Approval and Informed Consent

All Short Reports must comply with applicable national and international research ethics requirements, including the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki for research involving human participants.

The manuscript must identify the responsible ethics committee or institutional review board and provide the approval number and date, where applicable.

Where ethics approval was waived or an exemption was granted, the responsible authority and the basis for that decision must be documented.

Informed consent requirements must be addressed according to the study design, applicable legislation, and institutional regulations.

Any approved waiver of informed consent must be clearly reported.

Research involving animals must comply with applicable institutional and national animal welfare requirements.

Patient confidentiality must be maintained, and identifiable clinical information or images must not be published without the appropriate authorization and consent.

Statistical Reporting and Data Transparency

Statistical analyses must be appropriate to the research design and sample size.

Authors should report relevant numerical findings, effect estimates, confidence intervals, and other measures of uncertainty when applicable.

Statistical significance should not be presented as a substitute for clinical relevance.

Authors must identify important methodological limitations, potential confounding, missing data, and sources of bias.

A data availability statement must be provided in accordance with applicable ethical, legal, and institutional restrictions.

Highlights and Running Title

Highlights: Authors must provide 3–5 concise statements summarizing the principal findings or clinical implications. Each highlight must not exceed 85 characters, including spaces.

Running Title: A concise running title is required, with a maximum of 50 characters, excluding the author-name prefix used in AJTES page headers.

Editorial Assessment and Peer Review

All Short Reports undergo preliminary editorial screening to assess scientific originality, clinical relevance, methodological completeness, ethical compliance, and adherence to journal requirements.

Manuscripts considered suitable for further evaluation undergo double-anonymized external peer review, ordinarily involving at least two independent reviewers.

The final editorial decision is based on scientific quality, methodological validity, clinical relevance, reviewer recommendations, and compliance with AJTES editorial policies.

Manuscript Requirements

Word-count policy: The word limit applies to the main manuscript text, excluding the title page, abstract, references, tables, figure legends, and supplementary materials.

Editorial discretion: Exceptions to the prescribed word, reference, or figure limits may be considered when scientifically justified and approved by the Editorial Office.

Definition and Scope

Commentary Articles are concise, focused, and evidence-informed scholarly contributions that provide critical interpretation, contextual analysis, or expert discussion of recently published research, emerging scientific developments, or significant clinical and professional issues relevant to trauma care, emergency surgery, acute care surgery, and related medical disciplines.

Commentaries aim to place new scientific findings or developments within the broader context of current evidence, clarify their implications for clinical practice, stimulate constructive academic discussion, and identify unresolved questions or areas requiring further investigation.

Unlike Original Research Articles, Commentaries do not ordinarily present new empirical research findings. Unlike conventional Narrative Reviews, they focus on a specific scientific development, publication, controversy, or emerging issue rather than providing a comprehensive overview of an entire field.

Commentary Articles are generally commissioned by the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board. Unsolicited submissions may be considered in exceptional circumstances when they offer substantial scientific or clinical relevance.

Types of Commentary

AJTES accepts two principal forms of Commentary Articles:

1. Article-Focused Commentary

These articles critically discuss one or more recently published scientific papers, emphasizing the interpretation, limitations, clinical implications, and potential impact of the reported findings.

Authors should move beyond summarizing the original publication and provide an independent, evidence-informed evaluation of its scientific or clinical significance.

2. Topic-Focused Commentary

These articles address important developments, emerging controversies, or changes in clinical practice, technology, healthcare organization, surgical education, or scientific policy.

Suitable topics include new surgical technologies, evolving treatment strategies, changes in clinical guidelines, patient safety initiatives, trauma systems, and emerging challenges in emergency surgical care.

Scientific and Editorial Requirements

Commentary Articles must present a clear central message supported by relevant and reliable scientific evidence.

Authors should critically interpret the available literature, acknowledge important limitations or uncertainties, and discuss relevant alternative perspectives fairly.

Commentaries should emphasize the implications of scientific developments rather than merely restating published findings.

The discussion should reflect the relevant evidence available at the time of submission, including peer-reviewed publications and accepted in-press articles when appropriate and adequately identifiable.

Authors must avoid selective citation, disproportionate emphasis on their own publications or those of close collaborators, unsupported claims, and promotional language.

Recommendations should be proportionate to the strength and certainty of the supporting evidence.

Manuscript Structure

Commentary Articles should follow a concise narrative format with optional thematic subheadings.

The recommended components are:

1. Title Page: Manuscript title, author names, institutional affiliations, corresponding author information, and required declarations.
2. Unstructured Abstract: A concise summary of the scientific issue, central interpretation, and principal clinical or research implications.
3. Keywords: Three to six relevant terms, preferably aligned with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH).
4. Introduction: Identification of the publication or development being discussed, its scientific context, and the principal objective of the commentary.
5. Critical Discussion: Evidence-informed interpretation, methodological or clinical considerations, relevant limitations, alternative perspectives, and implications for practice or research.
6. Conclusions or Future Directions: A concise statement of the main message and its relevance to clinical practice, scientific research, or healthcare policy.
7. Declarations: Author contributions, conflicts of interest, funding, and other applicable disclosures.
8. References: Relevant scientific publications supporting the discussion.

A conventional IMRaD structure is not required.

Abstract Requirements

An unstructured abstract of up to 250 words is required.

The abstract should briefly describe the scientific publication, clinical issue, or emerging development being addressed; explain the central interpretation; and summarize the principal implications.

The abstract must be written as continuous prose without mandatory section headings.

It should accurately reflect the content and must not imply that original research was performed when the article consists of scholarly commentary.

Reporting Guidelines

There is no universally mandated reporting checklist specifically designed for conventional Commentary Articles.

Study-specific reporting guidelines, including CONSORT, STROBE, STARD, CARE, and PRISMA, are not routinely applicable to commentaries that do not report original research or systematic evidence synthesis.

If a manuscript presents substantial original data, a formal systematic review, or a meta-analysis, it should be submitted under the appropriate research or review article category.

PRISMA flow diagrams, PRISMA checklists, and systematic review protocol registration are not required for conventional Commentary Articles.

Publication-Based Commentary

When a Commentary discusses a specific published article, the original publication must be clearly identified and appropriately cited.

The Commentary should provide an independent interpretation of the publication and explain its relevance, limitations, or implications without reproducing substantial portions of the original text.

Where appropriate, the journal may establish electronic bibliographic links between the Commentary and the article being discussed.

When a submission primarily raises direct questions or substantive criticism concerning a specific AJTES publication, the Editorial Office may classify it as a Letter to the Editor to allow the original authors an appropriate opportunity to respond.

Ethical Standards and Conflicts of Interest

All Commentary Articles must comply with AJTES policies on publication ethics, authorship, research integrity, transparency, editorial independence, confidentiality, and responsible scientific communication.

Authors must disclose all relevant financial and non-financial relationships, institutional affiliations, professional interests, funding sources, and other activities that could influence, or reasonably be perceived to influence, their interpretation of scientific evidence.

Relevant relationships involving pharmaceutical products, medical devices, surgical technologies, professional organizations, healthcare institutions, or clinical guidelines discussed in the manuscript must be explicitly declared.

Commentaries must distinguish the authors' professional interpretations from official statements of AJTES or affiliated organizations unless explicitly designated as such.

Ethics committee approval is not ordinarily required for conventional Commentaries that do not report original research involving human participants, animals, or protected data.

Any inclusion of identifiable patient information must comply with applicable confidentiality and informed consent requirements.

Editorial Assessment and Peer Review

Commentary Articles undergo preliminary editorial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated member of the Editorial Board.

The assessment considers scientific relevance, originality of interpretation, factual accuracy, quality of supporting evidence, balance, clarity, ethical compliance, and suitability for the journal's readership.

External peer review may be requested at the discretion of the handling editor, particularly when a Commentary addresses complex scientific evidence, disputed clinical recommendations, or clinically consequential developments.

Commentaries authored by editors or Editorial Board members must be handled by an independent editor without relevant conflicts of interest.

The final editorial decision rests with the responsible handling editor.

Manuscript Requirements

Word-count policy: The word limit applies to the main manuscript text and excludes the title page, abstract, references, tables, figure legends, and supplementary materials.

Editorial discretion: Exceptions to word, reference, or figure limits may be considered when scientifically justified and approved by the responsible editor.

Authors should give a balanced account of the field, discuss work that is published or in press at the time of writing, and not concentrate on their own work or that of close colleagues. A conflict-of-interest declaration is mandatory.

Structure. Continuous prose with an unstructured abstract; no IMRaD headings.

Limits and review. Word limit: up to 2,000 words (excluding title page, abstract, references, tables, and figure legends). Abstract: unstructured, up to 250 words. References: up to 40. Tables and figures: up to 2. Peer review: assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or a member of the Editorial Board, and sent for external peer review at the editors' discretion.

Perspective Article

Definition and Scope

Perspective Articles are scholarly, evidence-informed contributions that provide a critical, forward-looking interpretation of important clinical, scientific, educational, ethical, organizational, or healthcare-policy issues relevant to trauma care, emergency surgery, acute care surgery, and related medical disciplines.

These articles allow clinicians, researchers, educators, and healthcare professionals to critically examine emerging developments, reassess established concepts, identify gaps in current knowledge, and propose directions for future research, clinical practice, professional education, or healthcare system improvement.

Unlike Opinion Articles, which primarily advance and defend a particular professional position, Perspective Articles emphasize contextual analysis, interpretation of evolving evidence, and exploration of future opportunities, challenges, and strategic priorities.

Perspective Articles should be grounded in relevant peer-reviewed literature and scientifically credible evidence rather than personal experience or unsupported assertions alone.

Suitable Topics

Perspective Articles may address:

• Emerging concepts and evolving strategies in trauma and emergency surgery.
• Developments in acute care surgery, critical care, and multidisciplinary emergency management.
• Advances in diagnostic technologies, minimally invasive surgery, and surgical innovation.
• Trauma systems, regionalization of care, and healthcare organizational models.
• Patient safety, quality improvement, and healthcare outcomes.
• Surgical education, competency-based training, simulation, and professional development.
• Clinical practice guidelines, evidence gaps, and future research priorities.
• Ethical challenges in emergency surgical decision-making.
• Artificial intelligence, digital health, and technological transformation in surgical practice.
• Global surgery, health inequalities, and access to emergency surgical care.
• Future directions in translational research, precision medicine, and evidence-based surgical practice.

Submissions must demonstrate scientific relevance, intellectual originality, balanced critical analysis, and potential implications for the journal's readership.

Scientific and Editorial Requirements

Perspective Articles should present a clearly defined central theme or analytical question and develop a coherent, evidence-informed discussion.

Authors must critically interpret the available scientific literature, distinguish established findings from emerging hypotheses or expert interpretation, and acknowledge relevant limitations, uncertainties, and competing perspectives.

The manuscript should identify important knowledge gaps, unresolved questions, or limitations of current clinical practice and explain their implications for future developments.

Recommendations and proposed directions must be proportionate to the available evidence and should not be presented as established clinical standards when supporting evidence is insufficient.

Original research data and formal statistical analyses are not ordinarily required. However, use published quantitative evidence, comparative information, conceptual models, and explanatory figures when relevant.

Perspective Articles should offer a meaningful contribution beyond summarizing existing literature by providing critical insight, conceptual interpretation, or a justified vision for future practice or research.

Manuscript Structure

Perspective Articles should follow a flexible narrative structure with thematic subheadings where appropriate.

The recommended components are:

1. Title Page: Manuscript title, author names, institutional affiliations, corresponding author information, and required declarations.
2. Unstructured Abstract: A concise summary of the topic, central perspective, supporting evidence, and principal implications.
3. Keywords: Three to six relevant terms, preferably aligned with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH).
4. Introduction: Scientific or clinical background, significance of the topic, current challenges, and the central purpose of the article.
5. Current Evidence and Context: Critical interpretation of relevant literature, established knowledge, emerging developments, and existing controversies.
6. Critical Analysis and Perspectives: Discussion of competing interpretations, limitations, knowledge gaps, and potential implications.
7. Future Directions and Clinical Implications: Proposed priorities for clinical practice, research, education, innovation, or healthcare policy.
8. Conclusions: A concise synthesis of the principal perspectives and their potential significance.
9. Declarations: Author contributions, conflicts of interest, funding, and other applicable disclosures.
10. References: Relevant and accurately cited scientific literature supporting the discussion.

A conventional IMRaD structure is not required.

Abstract Requirements

An unstructured abstract of up to 250 words is required.

The abstract should briefly describe:

• The clinical, scientific, or organizational issue being addressed.
• The current context or evidence gap.
• The central interpretation or perspective.
• The principal implications or proposed future directions.

The abstract must be presented as continuous prose without mandatory section headings.

It should accurately reflect the manuscript and avoid unsupported claims or conclusions.

Reporting Guidelines

There is no universally mandated research-reporting checklist specifically designed for conventional Perspective Articles.

Study-specific reporting guidelines, including CONSORT, STROBE, STARD, CARE, and PRISMA, are not routinely applicable to Perspective Articles that provide scholarly analysis without reporting original research or conducting a systematic evidence synthesis.

Authors should cite and critically interpret the relevant literature accurately and transparently.

If a manuscript primarily presents original empirical findings, a systematic review, or a quantitative meta-analysis, it should be submitted under the appropriate research or review article category.

A PRISMA flow diagram, PRISMA checklist, and systematic review protocol registration are not required for conventional Perspective Articles.

Ethical Standards and Conflicts of Interest

All Perspective Articles must comply with AJTES policies on publication ethics, authorship, originality, research integrity, transparency, confidentiality, and editorial independence.

Authors must disclose relevant financial and non-financial relationships, professional affiliations, institutional interests, funding sources, and other activities that may influence, or reasonably be perceived to influence, the interpretation of evidence or recommendations.

Particular attention should be given to relevant relationships involving medical devices, pharmaceutical products, surgical technologies, professional organizations, healthcare institutions, or policy initiatives discussed in the manuscript.

Perspective Articles should clearly distinguish the authors' scholarly interpretations from official positions of AJTES or affiliated institutions unless explicitly authorized and designated as such.

Ethics committee approval is not ordinarily required for conventional Perspective Articles that do not involve original research with human participants, animals, or protected data.

Any identifiable patient information must comply with applicable confidentiality and informed consent requirements.

Editorial Assessment and Peer Review

All Perspective Articles undergo preliminary editorial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated member of the Editorial Board.

The assessment considers scientific relevance, originality of perspective, quality and balance of supporting evidence, clarity of analysis, academic contribution, ethical compliance, and adherence to journal requirements.

External peer review may be requested at the handling editor's discretion, particularly when the manuscript addresses complex scientific evidence, controversial clinical recommendations, emerging technologies, or consequential healthcare-policy proposals.

Perspective Articles authored by editors or Editorial Board members must be handled by an independent editor without relevant conflicts of interest.

The final decision regarding publication rests with the responsible editor.

Manuscript Requirements

Word-count policy: The word limit applies to the main manuscript text and excludes the title page, abstract, references, tables, figure legends, and supplementary materials.

Editorial discretion: Exceptions to word, reference, and figure limits may be considered when scientifically justified and approved by the responsible editor.

Opinion Article

Definition and Scope

Opinion Articles are concise, evidence-informed scholarly contributions that present a clearly articulated and critically reasoned professional viewpoint on significant clinical, scientific, educational, ethical, organizational, or health-policy issues relevant to trauma care, emergency surgery, acute care surgery, and related medical disciplines.

These articles provide experienced clinicians, researchers, educators, and healthcare professionals a forum to interpret existing evidence critically, challenge established clinical practices, address emerging controversies, and propose perspectives that may stimulate scientific discussion or improve patient care.

Unlike Original Research Articles, Opinion Articles are not intended to report new empirical research findings. Their primary purpose is to develop and defend a well-supported argument based on existing scientific evidence, clinical expertise, and transparent professional reasoning.

Suitable Topics

Opinion Articles may address:

• Controversial or evolving clinical practices in trauma and emergency surgery.
• Critical interpretation of current scientific evidence or clinical guidelines.
• Emerging challenges in surgical decision-making and patient safety.
• Ethical dilemmas in trauma, emergency surgery, and critical care.
• Healthcare policy, trauma systems, and emergency preparedness.
• Surgical education, professional training, and competency development.
• Healthcare quality, resource allocation, and organizational priorities.
• Research methodology, scientific integrity, and publication ethics.
• Emerging technologies, innovation, and artificial intelligence in surgical practice.
• Unresolved clinical questions and priorities for future research.

Submissions should address topics of substantial relevance to the journal's readership and contribute to informed scientific or professional debate.

Scientific and Editorial Requirements

Opinion Articles must present a clear central position supported by relevant, accurate, and appropriately cited scientific literature.

Authors should distinguish established evidence from professional interpretation, clinical experience, hypotheses, and personal viewpoints.

Arguments must be logically developed, scientifically credible, and balanced. Relevant alternative perspectives, limitations, uncertainties, and opposing evidence should be acknowledged and discussed fairly.

Recommendations must be proportionate to the strength and certainty of the available evidence. Unsupported claims, selective citation, exaggerated conclusions, and promotional or commercially influenced arguments are not acceptable.

Opinion Articles should offer meaningful implications for clinical practice, research, professional education, healthcare organization, or health policy.

Manuscript Structure

Opinion Articles should generally follow a flexible narrative structure with optional thematic subheadings.

The recommended components are:

1. Title Page: Manuscript title, author names, institutional affiliations, corresponding author information, and required declarations.
2. Unstructured Abstract: A concise summary of the topic, central position, supporting rationale, and principal implications.
3. Keywords: Three to six relevant terms, preferably aligned with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH).
4. Introduction: Background, significance of the issue, existing controversy or knowledge gap, and the author's central position.
5. Main Discussion: Critical interpretation of the scientific evidence, principal arguments, relevant alternative perspectives, and clinical or professional implications.
6. Conclusions or Recommendations: A concise synthesis of the author's position, its implications, and potential directions for practice, research, or policy.
7. Declarations: Author contributions, conflicts of interest, funding, and other applicable disclosures.
8. References: Relevant, accurate, and preferably current scientific literature supporting the arguments.

A conventional IMRaD structure is not required.

Abstract Requirements

An unstructured abstract of up to 250 words is required.

The abstract should briefly identify the clinical or scientific issue, state the central position, summarize the supporting rationale, and highlight the principal implications.

The abstract must be presented as continuous prose without mandatory section headings.

It should accurately reflect the article's arguments and must not imply that original research was conducted unless such research is separately reported in an appropriate manuscript category.

Reporting Guidelines

There is no universally mandated study-reporting checklist specifically developed for conventional Opinion Articles.

Study-specific reporting guidelines, including CONSORT, STROBE, STARD, CARE, and PRISMA, are not routinely applicable to opinion-based scholarly commentary.

If a manuscript presents substantial original research findings, a formal systematic review, or quantitative evidence synthesis, it should be submitted under the appropriate research or review article category.

A PRISMA flow diagram, PRISMA checklist, and systematic review protocol registration are not required for conventional Opinion Articles.

Ethical Standards and Conflicts of Interest

All Opinion Articles must comply with AJTES policies on publication ethics, authorship, editorial independence, scientific integrity, confidentiality, and responsible scholarly communication.

Authors must disclose all relevant financial and non-financial relationships, institutional interests, professional affiliations, and other activities that could influence, or reasonably be perceived to influence, the arguments presented.

When an article discusses specific pharmaceutical products, medical devices, commercial technologies, institutions, professional organizations, or healthcare policies, authors must explicitly declare any relevant relationships or interests.

The presence of a disclosed relationship does not automatically preclude publication; however, transparency is mandatory, and the Editorial Office may require additional disclosures or independent assessment.

Submissions involving identifiable patient information must comply with applicable confidentiality, consent, and ethical requirements.

Opinion Articles must clearly distinguish the views of the authors from official statements of AJTES or affiliated institutions unless explicitly authorized and designated as such.

Editorial Assessment and Peer Review

All Opinion Articles undergo preliminary editorial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated member of the Editorial Board.

The assessment considers relevance to the journal's scope, scientific accuracy, clarity of argument, balanced interpretation, originality of perspective, ethical compliance, and adherence to manuscript requirements.

External peer review may be requested at the handling editor's discretion, particularly when the manuscript addresses controversial clinical practices, complex scientific evidence, potentially consequential policy recommendations, or disputed scientific questions.

Manuscripts authored by editors or Editorial Board members must be assigned to an independent handling editor without relevant conflicts of interest.

The final publication decision rests with the responsible editor.

Manuscript Requirements

Word-count policy: The word limit applies to the main manuscript text and excludes the title page, abstract, references, tables, figure legends, and supplementary materials.

Editorial discretion: Exceptions to the prescribed word, reference, or figure limits may be considered when scientifically justified and approved by the responsible editor.

Letter to the Editor

Definition and Scope

Letters to the Editor are concise, evidence-informed scholarly communications that provide constructive comments, critical appraisal, scientific clarification, or alternative interpretations of articles previously published in the Albanian Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery (AJTES).

Letters may also address focused clinical, scientific, methodological, ethical, or educational issues of particular relevance to trauma care, emergency surgery, acute care surgery, and related medical disciplines.

This article category aims to promote transparent post-publication scientific discussion, encourage constructive academic debate, and strengthen the accuracy, interpretation, and clinical relevance of published research.

Suitable Content

Letters to the Editor may include:

• Constructive criticism or clarification of recently published AJTES articles.
• Discussion of methodological limitations or statistical interpretation.
• Alternative interpretations of previously reported findings.
• Questions concerning diagnostic, therapeutic, or surgical approaches.
• Brief evidence-informed observations of clinical or scientific relevance.
• Comments on current guidelines, clinical recommendations, or emerging evidence.
• Clarification of important scientific, educational, or professional issues.

Letters must be focused, scientifically justified, professionally written, and supported by relevant references where appropriate.

Submissions containing personal criticism, defamatory statements, unsupported allegations, or inappropriate language will not be considered.

Letters reporting substantial original research findings, comprehensive case reports, or systematic evidence syntheses should be submitted under the appropriate article category.

Manuscript Structure

Letters to the Editor should follow a concise narrative format and generally include:

1. Title Page: Manuscript title, author names, institutional affiliations, corresponding author information, and required declarations.
2. Opening Statement: Identification of the article being discussed, where applicable, and a clear statement of the purpose of the letter.
3. Main Discussion: Focused scientific arguments, critical observations, methodological comments, or clinical interpretations supported by appropriate evidence.
4. Concluding Statement: A concise summary of the principal message, clarification, or recommendation.
5. Declarations: Author contributions, conflicts of interest, funding, and other applicable disclosures.
6. References: Relevant scientific references, including the original AJTES article when the letter comments on a published publication.

A structured abstract and conventional IMRaD organization are not required.

Correspondence Concerning Published Articles

Letters that raise substantive scientific or methodological criticism of an AJTES article will ordinarily be forwarded to the corresponding author of the original publication for an opportunity to respond.

The Editorial Office will assess both the letter and any author response for scientific accuracy, relevance, clarity, and professional conduct.

When appropriate, the Letter to the Editor and the corresponding Author Reply may be published together or in a coordinated manner to facilitate balanced scientific discussion.

Each published item will be treated as a separate citable publication, with its own DOI when assigned, and linked electronically to the original article and related correspondence.

The editorial decision to publish a letter does not depend on the agreement of the authors of the original article. A letter may be published without an author reply when the original authors decline or do not respond within the specified period.

Research Integrity and Post-Publication Concerns

Letters addressing differences in scientific interpretation, methodological disagreement, or clinical opinion are considered part of legitimate post-publication academic discussion.

However, submissions raising concerns about possible data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, serious ethical violations, or the reliability of published findings must be assessed under the journal's Research Integrity, Corrections and Retractions Policy.

Where appropriate, such concerns may require editorial investigation, institutional consultation, correction, an expression of concern, or retraction rather than publication solely as a Letter to the Editor.

Reporting Guidelines

There is no universally mandated reporting checklist specifically developed for conventional Letters to the Editor.

CONSORT, STROBE, STARD, CARE, and PRISMA are not routinely applicable to letters consisting solely of scientific commentary or post-publication discussion.

If a letter contains substantive original clinical research, patient-level data, or a formal evidence synthesis, the Editorial Office may require compliance with the relevant reporting guideline or recommend submission under another article category.

Ethical and Editorial Requirements

All submissions must comply with AJTES policies on authorship, originality, academic integrity, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, and responsible scientific communication.

Anonymous letters are not accepted for publication. The identity and institutional affiliation of all authors must be provided to the Editorial Office.

Letters must not contain confidential patient information or identifiable clinical details without the appropriate ethical authorization and informed consent for publication.

Authors must disclose relevant financial and non-financial conflicts of interest, funding sources, and other relationships that may influence the content.

Letters authored by editors or Editorial Board members must be handled independently in accordance with the journal's conflict-of-interest and editorial independence policies.

Editorial Assessment and Peer Review

All Letters to the Editor undergo editorial screening by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated member of the Editorial Board.

The evaluation considers scientific relevance, originality of argument, factual accuracy, constructive academic contribution, ethical compliance, and adherence to journal requirements.

External peer review may be requested at the discretion of the handling editor, particularly when a letter raises complex methodological, statistical, or clinically significant issues.

Authors of the original article will ordinarily be invited to respond when substantive criticism is raised.

The final decision regarding publication rests with the responsible editor.

Manuscript Requirements

Word-count policy: The word limit applies to the main text, excluding the title page, references, tables, and figure legends.

Editorial discretion: Exceptions to the prescribed word, reference, or figure limits may be considered when scientifically justified and approved by the responsible editor.

Definition and Scope

News and Updates are concise, informative, and editorially approved publications that communicate significant scientific, clinical, educational, professional, institutional, or public-health developments relevant to trauma care, emergency surgery, acute care surgery, and related medical disciplines.

This category provides timely, accurate, and accessible information to the journal's readership regarding important developments in clinical practice, scientific societies, professional education, research activities, healthcare organization, and academic publishing.

News and Updates are generally commissioned, prepared, or approved by the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board. Contributions from scientific societies, academic institutions, professional organizations, and individual experts may also be considered, subject to editorial approval.

Unlike Original Research Articles, News and Updates do not ordinarily present original research findings, formal scientific investigations, or systematic evidence syntheses.

Their primary purpose is scientific and professional communication rather than the generation of new empirical evidence.

Suitable Topics

News and Updates may include:

• Reports from national and international scientific congresses, conferences, symposia, and workshops.
• Updates on newly published clinical guidelines, consensus statements, and professional recommendations.
• Activities, initiatives, and achievements of scientific and professional societies.
• Scientific collaborations, multicenter research initiatives, and international academic partnerships.
• Surgical education, professional training, simulation programs, and certification courses.
• Developments in trauma systems, emergency care organization, and public-health preparedness.
• Announcements of relevant scientific publications, research opportunities, and educational resources.
• Academic appointments, professional recognitions, scientific awards, and institutional achievements.
• Innovations in surgical practice, medical technologies, and healthcare delivery.
• Journal announcements, editorial developments, special issues, and calls for papers.
• Relevant public-health developments and professional initiatives affecting trauma and emergency surgical care.

Submissions must demonstrate clear relevance to the journal's scope and provide meaningful informational or educational value to its readership.

Scientific and Editorial Requirements

All News and Updates must be accurate, relevant, balanced, and supported by verifiable information.

Authors should clearly distinguish factual reporting from interpretation, institutional opinion, or promotional statements.

Whenever possible, information should be supported by official sources, published scientific literature, institutional communications, or other reliable documentation.

Reports describing clinical guidelines or scientific recommendations must accurately identify the issuing organization, publication date, and relevant source documents.

Conference and meeting reports should identify the event, organizing institution, dates, location, principal scientific themes, and relevant educational or professional outcomes.

Statements concerning clinical effectiveness, patient outcomes, or scientific advances must not exceed the available supporting evidence.

Promotional content, commercial advertising, unsupported scientific claims, and institutional publicity lacking professional or educational relevance are not suitable for this article category.

Submissions containing substantial original research data, detailed clinical investigations, or formal scientific analyses should be submitted under the appropriate research article category.

Manuscript Structure

News and Updates may follow a flexible narrative structure with appropriate thematic subheadings.

The recommended components are:

1. Title Page

The full article title, author names, institutional affiliations, corresponding author information, and required declarations, where applicable.

2. Introduction or Opening Statement

A concise description of the development, event, announcement, or professional activity being reported.

3. Main Content

A clear and logically organized presentation of the relevant information, including key developments, scientific or educational activities, institutional context, and supporting sources.

4. Scientific, Clinical, or Professional Relevance

A brief explanation of the significance of the reported development for clinical practice, scientific research, surgical education, patient safety, or healthcare organization, where appropriate.

5. Conclusions or Key Message

A concise summary of the principal information and its relevance to the journal's readership.

6. Declarations

Applicable statements regarding author contributions, conflicts of interest, funding, institutional affiliations, permissions, and other relevant disclosures.

7. References

Relevant scientific publications, official guidelines, institutional documents, or other verifiable sources, where necessary.

A conventional IMRaD structure and scientific abstract are not required.

Abstract Requirements

An abstract is not required for News and Updates.

Authors should begin the main text directly with the introduction or opening statement.

A brief editorial summary may be prepared for the journal's website or publication metadata when appropriate. Such a summary does not constitute a mandatory scientific abstract.

Reporting Guidelines

There is no universally mandated scientific reporting checklist specifically designed for conventional News and Updates.

Research reporting guidelines such as CONSORT, STROBE, STARD, CARE, and PRISMA are not routinely applicable to informational or professional news publications.

When a submission primarily reports original clinical research, a systematic review, or another formal study, it must be classified under the appropriate scientific article category.

A PRISMA checklist, PRISMA flow diagram, and research protocol registration are not required for conventional News and Updates.

Ethical Standards and Publication Integrity

All News and Updates must comply with AJTES policies on publication ethics, accuracy, transparency, authorship, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, copyright, and responsible scientific communication.

Authors must disclose relevant financial and non-financial interests, sponsorship, institutional affiliations, and other relationships that could influence the content.

When reporting activities supported by commercial sponsors, the nature of the sponsorship must be clearly disclosed. News and Updates must not be presented as independent scientific evidence when the content is primarily promotional.

Do not publish patient-identifying information, clinical photographs, or other confidential material without the necessary authorization and informed consent.

Photographs, logos, figures, and previously published materials must comply with applicable copyright, licensing, and permission requirements.

Where a report refers to another institution, society, or organization, the information must be accurate and should be appropriately attributed.

Editorial Assessment and Peer Review

All News and Updates undergo editorial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated member of the Editorial Board.

The assessment considers relevance, factual accuracy, reliability of sources, clarity, timeliness, professional significance, ethical compliance, and consistency with AJTES editorial policies.

External expert review or fact-checking may be requested when the content involves complex scientific claims, clinical recommendations, disputed information, or potentially consequential healthcare developments.

Routine external scientific peer review is not required for conventional News and Updates.

Publication is subject to editorial approval and does not imply endorsement by AJTES of any commercial product, organization, or institutional position.

Indexing and Publication Classification

News and Updates constitute editorial or informational content rather than primary original research.

Publication under this category does not guarantee indexing in Scopus, PubMed, MEDLINE, or other bibliographic databases.

Indexing eligibility and document classification depend on the policies, selection criteria, and content-type definitions of the relevant database.

AJTES will identify News and Updates accurately in its publication metadata and will not classify informational items as original research solely for indexing purposes.

Manuscript Requirements

Word-count policy: The word limit applies to the main manuscript text, excluding the title page, references, tables, figure legends, and supplementary materials.

Editorial discretion: Exceptions to the prescribed word, reference, or figure limits may be considered when justified and approved by the responsible editor.

Congress Proceedings (Conference Abstracts)

Definition and Scope

Congress Proceedings comprise collections of scientific abstracts accepted for presentation at national or international conferences, congresses, symposia, or scientific meetings organized, co-organized, or officially endorsed by the Albanian Society for Trauma and Emergency Surgery (ASTES) or other recognized scientific partners.

Accepted abstracts may be published as a dedicated supplement or special issue of the Albanian Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery (AJTES).

This publication category aims to facilitate the timely dissemination of scientific findings, clinical observations, emerging research, educational innovations, and professional developments relevant to trauma care, emergency surgery, acute care surgery, and related medical disciplines.

Congress Proceedings may include abstracts of original research, systematic reviews, clinical studies, case reports, case series, surgical innovations, and other scientifically relevant contributions accepted by the meeting's Scientific Committee.

Publication of a conference abstract represents dissemination of a scientific meeting contribution and must not be misrepresented as equivalent to publication of a complete, externally peer-reviewed research article.

Scientific and Editorial Requirements

Abstracts submitted for Congress Proceedings must be scientifically relevant, clearly written, accurate, and consistent with the objectives and scope of the scientific meeting.

Each abstract must provide sufficient information to enable readers to understand its scientific purpose, methodology or clinical context, principal findings, and conclusions.

Authors must ensure that:

• The title accurately reflects the scientific content.
• All authors and institutional affiliations are correctly identified.
• The objectives are clearly stated.
• The methodology or clinical approach is adequately described.
• Principal results are reported accurately.
• Conclusions are supported by the presented findings.
• Relevant ethical and consent requirements have been satisfied.
• Potential conflicts of interest and sources of funding are appropriately disclosed.
• Previously published material is transparently acknowledged.

Abstracts containing unsupported conclusions, misleading scientific claims, inappropriate promotional content, or material that raises unresolved ethical concerns may be rejected or returned for correction.

Eligible Abstract Categories

Congress Proceedings may include the following types of contributions:

1. Original Research Abstracts

Brief reports of original clinical, observational, epidemiological, experimental, translational, or health-services research.

2. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Abstracts

Summaries of evidence syntheses conducted using appropriate systematic methodologies.

3. Case Report Abstracts

Concise descriptions of unusual, rare, or educationally significant clinical cases.

4. Case Series Abstracts

Summaries of multiple patients sharing relevant clinical conditions, interventions, or outcomes.

5. Surgical Innovation and Technical Abstracts

Reports of surgical techniques, procedural developments, clinical innovations, or technological applications.

6. Educational and Healthcare Systems Abstracts

Reports concerning surgical education, trauma systems, quality improvement, emergency preparedness, simulation, and professional training.

The Scientific Committee may establish additional submission categories according to the objectives of the meeting.

Abstract Structure

Abstracts should follow a structure appropriate to their scientific category.

A. Original Research Abstracts

A structured abstract is recommended using the following headings:

• Background: Scientific context, rationale, and objective.
• Methods: Study design, setting, population, interventions, and analytical methods.
• Results: Principal findings, supported by relevant numerical data.
• Conclusions: Main findings and their clinical or scientific implications.

B. Systematic Review Abstracts

Abstracts must summarize the review objective, information sources, eligibility criteria, synthesis methods, principal findings, and conclusions.

Authors should address the applicable PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts reporting items within the meeting's word limit.

C. Case Report Abstracts

Case Report abstracts may use an adapted structure:

• Introduction or Background.
• Case Presentation.
• Discussion.
• Conclusions or Clinical Learning Points.

D. Surgical, Technical, or Educational Abstracts

An adapted structure appropriate to the nature of the contribution may be accepted when approved by the Scientific Committee.

Abstracts must accurately represent completed findings. Preliminary research must be clearly identified as preliminary, and conclusions must be proportionate to the available evidence.

Manuscript and Abstract Submission Requirements

Each submitted abstract should include:

1. Abstract Title: A concise, informative title reflecting the scientific contribution.
2. Author Information: Full author names, affiliations, and corresponding author details.
3. Abstract Text: Up to 350 words, using the appropriate format.
4. Keywords: Three to six relevant terms, preferably aligned with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH).
5. References: Up to five, when relevant and permitted by the meeting's submission rules.
6. Tables and Figures: Up to one combined, when appropriate.
7. Ethics and Consent Declarations: As applicable to the study or clinical material.
8. Funding and Conflict-of-Interest Disclosures: As required by the meeting and journal.
9. Registration Information: For clinical trials or other research requiring registration.
10. Originality and Publication Declaration: Disclosure of prior presentation, publication, or related submissions.

The Scientific Committee may establish supplementary requirements or submission templates for individual meetings.

Scientific Selection and Editorial Assessment

Scientific abstracts are evaluated and selected for presentation by the meeting's Scientific Committee according to the congress's established scientific criteria.

Following scientific acceptance, abstracts intended for publication undergo editorial screening by AJTES to assess:

• Relevance to the journal's scope.
• Completeness of essential bibliographic information.
• Scientific clarity and consistency.
• Accuracy of titles, authorship, and affiliations.
• Compliance with ethical and publication requirements.
• Appropriate disclosure of conflicts of interest and funding.
• Suitability for publication in the designated supplement.

Congress abstracts are not routinely subjected to the same external double-anonymized peer-review process applied to full-length Original Research Articles.

The published supplement must clearly disclose the actual scientific selection, editorial assessment, and peer-review procedures used.

The Editor-in-Chief retains final responsibility for journal publication decisions and may require revisions, seek additional expert assessment, or decline publication of individual abstracts.

Publication Format and Supplement Identification

Congress Proceedings are published as identifiable AJTES supplements or special issues under the journal's registered ISSN, subject to the journal's publication policies.

Each supplement must include:

• The official title of the scientific meeting.
• The name of the organizing scientific society or institution.
• The location and dates of the meeting.
• The journal title and ISSN.
• Volume, issue or supplement designation, and publication date.
• Editorial and Scientific Committee information, where appropriate.
• A statement describing abstract selection and editorial review.
• Sponsorship and funding disclosures, including a statement when no external sponsorship was received.
• Complete and accurate bibliographic metadata.
• DOI information, where assigned.

A DOI may be assigned to the supplement as a whole and, when appropriate, to individual abstracts according to AJTES publishing and DOI registration policies.

Each assigned DOI must resolve to a stable publication record containing accurate bibliographic metadata.

Individual abstract DOIs are not mandatory solely because the supplement has a DOI.

Relationship to Subsequent Full-Length Publication

Publication of a preliminary scientific abstract in Congress Proceedings does not ordinarily preclude subsequent consideration of a complete research manuscript by AJTES or another scientific journal.

This approach is consistent with internationally recognized publication ethics recommendations concerning preliminary reports presented at scientific meetings.

Authors submitting a full-length manuscript based on a previously published congress abstract must:

• Clearly disclose the prior abstract publication in the cover letter or submission declaration.
• Provide the title, meeting name, publication details, and DOI or persistent link, where available.
• Cite the previously published abstract when relevant and bibliographically appropriate.
• Ensure that the full manuscript provides a complete and scientifically substantive account of the research.
• Transparently identify any relevant differences between the preliminary abstract and the final report.
• Avoid duplicate publication, inappropriate reuse of published material, or misleading representation of originality.

Subsequent full-length manuscripts submitted to AJTES must undergo the normal editorial and external peer-review process required for the relevant article category.

Publication of the conference abstract does not guarantee acceptance of the full manuscript.

When technically supported, AJTES should establish a bibliographic relationship between the published abstract and the subsequent full article.

Ethical Approval, Patient Consent, and Confidentiality

All abstracts must comply with applicable institutional, national, and international research ethics standards.

Research involving human participants, biological materials, or identifiable health data must report the relevant ethics committee approval, exemption, or authorized waiver, where applicable.

Where approval was granted, the responsible committee and approval identifier should be provided in the submission documentation.

Authors must confirm that the informed consent requirements applicable to their study design have been satisfied or appropriately waived.

Identifiable patient information, clinical photographs, and other potentially identifying material must not be published without appropriate authorization and informed consent for publication.

All direct and indirect patient identifiers must be removed unless their inclusion is essential, justified, and appropriately authorized.

Clinical trials must comply with applicable prospective trial registration requirements.

Ethical approval, informed consent for research participation, and consent for publication are distinct requirements and must be addressed accordingly.

Reporting Guidelines

Abstracts should follow the reporting principles appropriate to the underlying scientific study design.

Applicable frameworks may include:

• CONSORT for Abstracts: Randomized controlled trials.
• STROBE: Relevant principles for observational research.
• PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
• CARE: Relevant elements for individual case reports.
• PROCESS: Relevant elements for surgical case series.
• STARD: Relevant principles for diagnostic accuracy studies.

The full reporting checklist is not routinely required for every conference abstract.

A full PRISMA flow diagram is not ordinarily required for an abstract-only proceedings publication. However, abstracts reporting systematic reviews should provide sufficient study-selection and synthesis information to satisfy applicable PRISMA for Abstracts requirements within the available format.

Full reporting checklists and additional methodological documentation may be requested when necessary.

Protocol and Trial Registration

Protocol registration is not ordinarily required for all conference abstracts.

Clinical trials must comply with applicable prospective registration requirements regardless of whether their findings are initially presented as a congress abstract.

For systematic reviews, prospective protocol registration is strongly recommended where eligible, and available registration information should be reported.

For other study designs, registration or public availability of a study protocol is encouraged where appropriate.

Sponsorship, Editorial Independence, and Research Integrity

All Congress Proceedings must comply with AJTES policies on editorial independence, publication ethics, authorship, conflicts of interest, sponsorship, and scientific integrity.

The supplement must clearly disclose the organizations responsible for the scientific meeting and any financial or institutional support provided for its organization or publication.

Editorial decisions regarding publication must remain under the responsibility of AJTES.

Financial sponsors, commercial partners, or meeting organizers must not control the journal's final editorial decisions.

Any relevant relationships between authors, supplement editors, scientific organizers, and sponsoring organizations must be disclosed in accordance with applicable journal policies.

The supplement must clearly distinguish conference abstract selection from external peer review of full scientific manuscripts.

Indexing and Bibliographic Classification

Publication in an AJTES supplement does not automatically guarantee inclusion or individual abstract indexing in Scopus, PubMed, MEDLINE, or other bibliographic databases.

Indexing eligibility depends on the policies, content selection criteria, publication-type classifications, and technical requirements of the relevant database.

AJTES must accurately identify Congress Proceedings as conference abstract collections and must not represent abstracts as full-length peer-reviewed research articles.

Manuscript Requirements

Word-count policy: The 350-word limit applies to the abstract text and excludes the title, author list, affiliations, references, and any permitted table or figure legend.

Editorial discretion: The Scientific Committee and AJTES Editorial Office may establish additional requirements or approve justified exceptions according to the scientific meeting and publication format.

Definition and Scope

Conference Papers are full-length scholarly manuscripts developed from research or scientific work previously presented at a recognized national or international congress, conference, symposium, or scientific meeting.

These manuscripts provide a complete, methodologically sound, and scientifically rigorous account of the underlying research and are submitted for publication in a regular issue of the Albanian Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery (AJTES).

Unlike Conference Abstracts published in Congress Proceedings, Conference Papers constitute full-length scientific publications and must meet the same standards of originality, methodological transparency, ethical compliance, scientific reporting, and peer review as the corresponding Original Research Article, Review Article, or other appropriate article category.

Conference presentation or prior publication of a preliminary abstract does not automatically preclude submission of a complete manuscript.

However, all previous presentations, abstracts, proceedings publications, preprints, and substantially related manuscripts must be transparently disclosed at submission.

Eligible Contributions

Conference Papers may include:

• Original clinical, observational, epidemiological, or experimental research.
• Randomized controlled trials and other interventional investigations.
• Prospective and retrospective clinical studies.
• Diagnostic accuracy and outcomes research.
• Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
• Narrative Reviews developed from scientific conference presentations.
• Translational and laboratory-based research.
• Surgical innovation and technical research.
• Healthcare quality improvement and health-services research.
• Research concerning trauma systems, emergency preparedness, and surgical education.

The final manuscript must be categorized and evaluated according to its underlying scientific methodology.

Scientific and Methodological Requirements

Conference Papers must provide a complete and scientifically coherent presentation of the research undertaken.

The manuscript must include:

• A clearly defined research question or objective.
• Relevant scientific background and rationale.
• Appropriate and transparent methodology.
• Adequate description of the study population or research material.
• Clearly defined outcome measures, where applicable.
• Appropriate statistical or qualitative analyses.
• Complete presentation of relevant results.
• Critical interpretation of findings.
• Methodological limitations and potential sources of bias.
• Conclusions directly supported by the evidence.

Authors must not omit essential methodological information or selectively report findings solely because the research was previously presented at a scientific meeting.

The scientific quality and completeness of the manuscript must be equivalent to the standards required for a full-length article of the corresponding category.

Manuscript Structure

Conference Papers must follow the structure required for the underlying article type.

1. Title Page

A separate title page containing the full manuscript title, author names, institutional affiliations, corresponding author information, and required declarations.

2. Abstract

A structured or unstructured abstract, according to the underlying article category.

For Original Research Articles, the structured abstract should include Background, Objective, Methods, Results, and Conclusions.

3. Keywords

Three to six relevant keywords, preferably aligned with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH).

4. Introduction

Scientific background, relevant literature, knowledge gap, and the research objective or hypothesis.

5. Materials and Methods

For original research, a complete description of the study design, setting, participants, methods, outcome measures, statistical analyses, and ethical considerations.

For review articles, the methods and structure must comply with the relevant review category.

6. Results

A complete and accurate presentation of the principal findings, supported by appropriate numerical data, tables, and figures, where applicable.

7. Discussion

Critical interpretation of the findings in relation to existing evidence, including clinical significance, methodological strengths, limitations, and implications for future research.

8. Conclusions

Evidence-based conclusions directly addressing the research objectives.

9. Previous Conference Presentation Statement

A declaration identifying the scientific meeting at which the work was previously presented.

10. Declarations

Ethical approval, informed consent, clinical trial registration where applicable, author contributions, conflicts of interest, funding, data availability, and other required statements.

11. References

Relevant scientific references, including the previously published conference abstract or related publication where applicable.

12. Supplementary Materials

Reporting checklists, protocols, additional analyses, supplementary tables, and other relevant supporting documentation, where appropriate.

Previous Conference Presentation and Abstract Disclosure

Authors must disclose any previous scientific presentation or preliminary publication of the work.

The submission must identify:

• The official title of the conference or scientific meeting.
• The organizing institution or scientific society.
• The date and location of the meeting.
• The format of presentation, such as oral presentation, poster, or invited scientific communication.
• Whether a conference abstract was formally published.
• The bibliographic details and DOI of any published abstract, where available.

A published conference abstract must be appropriately cited when relevant and bibliographically identifiable.

Authors must disclose related manuscripts, proceedings papers, preprints, or other publications that substantially overlap with the submitted work.

Copies or links to relevant earlier publications must be provided to the Editorial Office when requested.

Relationship to Prior Abstracts and Full Publications

Presentation of research at a scientific meeting, including publication of a preliminary conference abstract, does not automatically constitute prior full publication.

AJTES may consider a complete manuscript developed from a previously presented abstract, provided that:

• The prior presentation and abstract publication are fully disclosed.
• The submitted manuscript meets the requirements of the appropriate full-length article category.
• The manuscript provides a scientifically complete account of the research.
• The published abstract is cited where appropriate.
• The submission does not constitute undisclosed duplicate publication.

Once published as a full-length Conference Paper, the article is considered a complete scholarly publication.

Subsequent publication of substantially overlapping content without transparent disclosure and appropriate justification is not permitted.

Authors developing further research from a previously published Conference Paper must submit a scientifically distinct manuscript that offers a substantial additional contribution, such as new data, a separate research question, materially extended follow-up, or new analyses addressing a genuinely different objective.

Any subsequent manuscript must clearly cite and disclose the earlier publication. The Editorial Office will assess whether the new contribution is sufficiently distinct to warrant consideration.

Routine expansion, rewriting, or repackaging of a previously published paper without substantial scientific novelty is not acceptable.

Research Reporting Guidelines

Conference Papers must comply with the reporting guideline appropriate to their underlying study design.

Applicable guidelines include:

• CONSORT 2025: Randomized controlled trials.
• STROBE: Cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies.
• STARD: Diagnostic accuracy studies.
• PRISMA 2020: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
• CARE: Case Reports.
• PROCESS: Surgical Case Series.
• ARRIVE 2.0: Animal research.
• TRIPOD / TRIPOD+AI: Clinical prediction model studies.
• SQUIRE 2.0: Healthcare quality improvement studies, where applicable.

Authors must submit the relevant reporting checklist when required by the underlying study design and AJTES submission policy.

A PRISMA checklist and PRISMA flow diagram are mandatory only when the manuscript reports a Systematic Review or Meta-Analysis.

Protocol Registration

Protocol or trial registration requirements depend on the underlying research design.

Clinical trials meeting the applicable ICMJE definition must comply with prospective registration requirements.

The registry name, registration number, and relevant registration information must be reported.

For eligible systematic reviews, prospective protocol registration is strongly recommended. Authors must report the registration details or explain the absence of registration, in accordance with AJTES policy.

For observational or other non-trial investigations, registration is encouraged where appropriate but is not ordinarily mandatory unless required by applicable regulations, funding conditions, or journal policy.

Previous presentation at a scientific conference does not exempt the study from applicable registration requirements.

Ethical Approval and Informed Consent

All Conference Papers must comply with applicable national and international research ethics requirements.

Research involving human participants, human biological materials, or identifiable health information must report the applicable ethical review and approval, exemption, or authorized waiver.

The manuscript must identify the responsible ethics committee or institutional review board and provide the approval number and date, where applicable.

Authors must address the informed consent requirements relevant to the research design.

Any authorized waiver of informed consent must be documented.

Identifiable patient information or clinical images must not be published without the required consent and authorization.

Research involving animals must comply with applicable institutional and national animal welfare requirements.

Authorship, Funding, and Research Integrity

All Conference Papers must comply with AJTES policies on authorship, originality, research integrity, conflicts of interest, funding disclosure, data transparency, and responsible use of artificial intelligence.

The authorship of the full manuscript must accurately reflect the contributions made to the submitted work.

Any differences between the authorship of the earlier conference abstract and the full manuscript should be explained when relevant to authorship integrity.

Financial support, conference sponsorship, industry involvement, and other relationships that may influence the research must be disclosed.

Previously published abstracts, figures, tables, or text must be appropriately cited, and copyright or licensing requirements must be respected.

Submission Requirements

Authors must use the official AJTES manuscript templates and provide the required supporting documents:

1. AJTES – Anonymised Manuscript Template.
2. AJTES – Author Declaration Form.
3. AJTES – Cover Letter Template.
4. AJTES – Title Page Template.

The Cover Letter must clearly disclose the previous conference presentation and any published abstract or related publication.

The submission must also include the relevant reporting checklist, registration information, and ethical declarations where applicable.

Incomplete submissions may be returned to the corresponding author for correction before editorial assessment or external peer review.

Editorial Assessment and Peer Review

Conference Papers undergo preliminary editorial screening to assess scientific relevance, originality, methodological completeness, ethical compliance, and adherence to AJTES requirements.

Manuscripts considered suitable undergo external double-anonymized peer review, ordinarily involving at least two independent reviewers.

Additional methodological or statistical review may be requested where appropriate.

Acceptance for presentation at a scientific conference does not guarantee acceptance for publication in AJTES.

The final editorial decision rests with the responsible editor and is based on scientific quality, methodological validity, reviewer recommendations, and compliance with the journal's editorial policies.

Manuscript Requirements

Word-count policy: The main-text word limit follows the corresponding article category and excludes the title page, abstract, references, tables, figure legends, and supplementary materials.

Editorial discretion: Exceptions to the prescribed limits may be considered when scientifically justified and approved by the Editorial Office.