Author Guidelines
Guidelines for
the submission of articles to
the Revista Colombiana de Ortopedia y Traumatología
(RCOT)
To ensure
the quality, transparency and integrity of the articles
published in the RCOT, as well as compliance with the ethical
principles that govern medical research, our journal adheres
to the following
guidelines:
Recommendations for
the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals of the
International Committee of
Medical Journal Editors
(ICJME).
Recommendations on
Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals of the
World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).
Guidelines on
Good Publication Practices of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Equator (Enhancing
the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network guidelines for reporting Health Research.
COPE,
DOAJ (Directory of Open
Access Journals), OASPA (Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association)
and WAME Principles of Transparency and Best Practices in Scholarly
Publishing.
Recommendations for
Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications of the Council of Science Editors (CSE).
Articles submitted
to the journal
must strictly conform to the
following guidelines; otherwise, they will be rejected at the screening stage (first stage of
the editorial process). To learn more about
each stage of this process
go to Editorial Process).
1. Submission of articles
to the Revista Colombiana
de Ortopedia y Traumatología (RCOT)
- Only articles submitted
through our Open Journal System portal will be accepted (Submissions).
- The article must
be submitted once it has been confirmed that it fully
complies with these guidelines (please note that the specific requirements
for each type of article
are available in section 3 of these guidelines).
- The article in its entirety (title
page, abstracts, body text, list of
references, and supplementary
documents) [Assignment of Publication and Reproduction Rights form, Authorship Responsibility form, and ICJME Conflict of Interest
Disclosure Form] must be completed by all authors
and must be uploaded in
step 2 of the submission process. If the study
requires the approval of an
institutional ethics committee or it
requires informed consent by the
patient(s) (e.g., case reports), a copy of such documents
must also be uploaded in step 2; submissions that fail to
include these documents will be rejected.
- All authors' metadata
must be added in step 3 of the submission
process: names, affiliation, email, ORCID code.
2. Submission languages and language of final publication
Submissions are accepted in English and Spanish only. The requirements
to be observed when submitting an article in one
of these two languages are described below.
This type
of article presents the findings
of studies or research in orthopedics and trauma and related
topics. It refers to an
unpublished document that provides new information on specific issues and makes a relevant contribution to scientific knowledge in the areas of
interest to the journal. The
body of the
text (i.e. excluding
tables, figures, abstracts, and references)
must not exceed 3200 words.
Original research articles must strictly conform
to the guidelines
for reporting health research established for the different study
types, among them:
Observational studies:
STROBE guidelines or its extensions.
Randomized clinical
trials: CONSORT 2010 Declaration
or its extensions.
Clinical protocols:
SPIRIT 2013 Statement.
Diagnostic/prognostic
validity/accuracy studies: STARD 2015 or TRIPOD.
Qualitative studies:
COREQ checklist.
Animal pre-clinical studies: ARRIVE.
More information on all the existing
guidelines is available at the Equator Network health research reporting library.
Original articles must comply
with the following structure. (Please note that all the information
must be included in the article. Do not submit any
of this information
in separate files):
Title page and author details
Title of
the article (in Spanish and English), providing accurate and concrete information
on the topic
to be discussed in the manuscript. Avoid long titles
(preferably no longer than 100 characters).
Running title of the
article (English and Spanish);
it must not
exceed 40 characters.
Full names of authors
as they appear in citations (do not use initials), along with the corresponding
affiliation identification
(superscript Arabic numerals).
Full affiliation of each author without
specifying positions and/or
degrees. Only list the institution,
the section or unit (faculty,
department, etc.), the city and the country. If an author
has more than one affiliation, they must be identified separately (Arabic numbers). If two
or more authors have the same
affiliation, they must use the same
identifier. Next is an example:
Ernesto
Morán-Sánchez,1 Sara Hernández-Martínez,2 Ana Gómez1,3
1.
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Orthopedics
and Traumatology Unit,
Bogotá D.C., Colombia.
2.
Hospital Militar Central, Orthopedics and Traumatology Service, Bogotá
D.C., Colombia.
3.
Fundación Cardioinfantil, Orthopedics
and Traumatology Service, Pediatric Orthopedics Subspecialty, Bogotá D.C., Colombia.
List of
authors with their own ORCID link.
Corresponding author
information: name, affiliation, city, country, and
email.
Number of
words: specify the total number of words in the
body of the
text (excluding abstracts, titles, author details, tables and/or figures, and list of references).
Number of
figures and tables: indicate the
total number of tables and
figures.
Abstract in Spanish
The abstract
of original research articles must not
exceed 250 words and must be structured as follows:
Introduction: Describe briefly and in general terms the topic or
problem to be addressed in the study that led to raise the
objective of the study.
Objective: Clearly
state the objective of your
article. Leave no room for ambiguities.
Please keep in mind that the
title, results, discussion and conclusions must be in line with the objective. In addition, the objective
presented in the abstract and the one stated in the
body of the
article (in the final part of the
Introduction section) must be the same.
Methodology: Clearly
and concisely describe information
regarding study type, study population
and sample (properly characterized), and study period. Describe the procedures performed or instruments used for data collection
(if applicable). Finally, include information about the statistical analysis (descriptive or inferential, as appropriate) carried out for
the study, using standard terms and clear wording.
Results: State
the most important findings of your study
in relation to the objective. In quantitative studies, results must be supported with data (percentages, frequencies, p-values, OR, RR or HR with their respective 95%CI,
etc.), so they must always be exact (i.e., do not make approximations).
Also, unless they are presented as whole numbers, always use two decimal places.
Conclusion: The
conclusion must be directly related to the objective
and supported by the findings of
the research. The information presented in the Results section must not be repeated
here, and results should only be mentioned in a narrative form to support the
conclusion.
Keywords (Spanish)
Include 3 to
6 terms that are found as exact descriptors in the DeCS Bireme thesaurus.
Abstract in English
The abstract
in English must match its Spanish version and must have been
translated or proofread by an
official translator specialized in writing biomedical texts in English.
Machine translations will not be accepted.
Keywords
Include 3 to
6 terms that are found as exact descriptors in the MeSH thesaurus.
Introduction
Provide a brief
and general contextualization of
the rationale for the study
and the topic or issue that
gave rise to the objective
and explain the importance of carrying
out the study
(justification). Include current (studies and/or documents published
in the last 5 years whenever possible) and pertinent information, citing only the most
relevant publications related to the
topic.
All the
information and statements included in this section must be properly cited and authors must verify
that they coincide exactly with the
data reported in the study or studies
cited. If you are referring to data, findings or statements of
a single study, only cite the source study
(i.e, do not include more references); on the contrary,
if you are describing general data or statements (e.g., ranges), several studies supporting said information (at least 2) must be cited. If possible,
include direct references from primary studies (e.g., original studies, systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses).
At the end of
the section, state the objective
of the study,
which must be the same as the
one described in the abstract.
Methodology
This section
must describe in detail the study type,
study population and sample selection process, as well as the procedures undertaken (methods and/or instruments used for data collection,
study variables, etc.) and the
statistical analyses performed, so that other researchers can replicate the work
or can conduct new studies based on
the results published in your article. Please note that, if your
work involves the use of new methods and protocols, they must be described
in detail; on the contrary, if
you use well-established methods, describe them briefly provided that the pertinent
references are listed. Where applicable (studies involving data from human subjects or the direct
or indirect participation of human subjects), ethical considerations must be reported (see the
Human and Animal Research section
of our Ethical
and Editorial Policies).
For a clearer
presentation of the section, organize
it (explicitly or implicitly) as follows, whenever possible:
Design/Study
Type
State the
exact name of the study
type or design;
specify the study period, unless
this information is described in the objective of
the study or in the characterization
of the study
population or the sample selection
process (next subsection).
Study population
and sample (primary data) or used data (secondary
data)
Describe
and characterize the study population and explain the sample
selection process: the study population
or universe, sample size estimation (if applicable), sampling method, selection process (the study population
or universe and inclusion
and/or exclusion criteria).
For case-control studies, clearly describe the ratio between groups (e.g., 1:2 ratio), provide the n for
each group (e.g.,
120; 240), and characterize both cases and controls
For studies
based on secondary data, describe the data
selection process, including the origin
of the data, study period, inclusion
and/or exclusion criteria, and total number of records included.
Procedures
This subsection,
depending on the type of
study, can be labeled
"Procedures" or
"Procedures and Instruments" or "Procedures and Study Variables" or "Procedures, Study Variables, and
Instruments"; they can also
be listed as three separate subsections.
Describe all procedures carried out: why,
how, where, when, and by whom
(e.g., whether data were obtained from
a medical record review or through questionnaires,
interviews, focus groups,
etc.)
If data were obtained by
means of instruments created and/or validated by
other researchers, please describe them briefly (e.g., name of the
instrument, components it assesses, number
and type of questions, assessment scale or score and cut-off points, method for obtaining
the total score, etc.), including
references. It must also be stated
whether the instrument has been previously validated in the study population
or a similar population, including the citation
of such validation.
If an
instrument designed by the authors
of the article
was used, in addition to its
description, and provided that it is
not a simple instrument designed ad hoc for the collection of basic data (e.g., sociodemographic information, since, in this case, it will
only be necessary to report that
an ad hoc questionnaire was used to
obtain data on certain variables), it is necessary to
report its validation process (validation by experts,
pilot test, adjustments,
etc.); if a pilot test was carried out,
describe it clearly.
It is
recommended to include instruments used (e.g. questionnaires)
as annexes at the end of the
article.
List all
the variables considered in
the study, either by categories
(sociodemographic, clinical,
intervention, etc.) or individually (sex, age, presence of comorbidities,
28-day mortality, etc.). Specify
which are the independent variables and which
are the dependent
variables.
For experimental studies involving interventions (pharmacological or not) in humans
or animals, it must be clearly
stated that the intervention protocol was registered
in a protocol registry database such as Clinical Trials, providing the registry
identifier.
Statistical analysis
or Data análisis
Describe
in detail all statistical analyses performed, starting with the software package(s) in which the data were entered
and analyzed. Then, present all information
related to the descriptive analysis of the data according
to the type
of variable and the distribution of the data (absolute frequencies, percentages, means, medians, standard deviations, interquartile ranges, etc.)
Moreover, if
inferential statistics were used, state
each of the
statistical analyses performed (bivariate, multivariate, ANOVA, MANOVA, etc.), the
purpose for performing them, the statistical tests that were
used or the
statistics and/or coefficients calculated according to the
type of variable (e.g., chi-square test, Mann-Withney U test, Spearman's r correlation coefficient, whether crude and/or adjusted OR, RR or HR were calculated, etc.), and the level of
statistical significance.
For qualitative
studies, this section shall be titled "Data Analysis"
and must contain all the information
related to the qualitative analysis of the
data; for example, describe
how data saturation was determined, the creation of
categories of analysis, the coding
of interviews, etc.
Ethical considerations
If the
study involved direct (e.g., focus
groups, interviews, administration
of questionnaires, interventions, etc.) or indirect participation (data from medical records) of human subjects, it is necessary
to report that the research
was approved by an institutional
ethics committee, stating the full name of the
committee and the institution, as well as the number of
the minutes in which the study was
approved and its date of issuance. In addition, it is
necessary to inform that the
study followed the ethical principles
for medical research involving human subjects established in the Declaration of Helsinki (duly cited) and, if conducted in Colombia, the health research
scientific, technical and
administrative standards of
Resolution 8430 of 1993 of the Colombian
Ministry of Health (duly referenced).
Also, reporting that informed consent
was obtained from all participants
is necessary in case of direct participation.
These requirements are mandatory for this
type of studies
(see Ethical and Editorial Policies).
This subsection
may be omitted if the study
only uses secondary data obtained from databases
(public or private) or other
data sources.
Results
This section
must only include, in an organized and coherent manner, the results
of the study
as per its objective and as
reported in the methodology section; please do not discuss
them.
At the beginning of
the section, to present the
results of the participant selection process, indicating the sample size or
n (number of participants finally included in the study). We recommend
complementing this information with a flow diagram.
In the body of
the text include only the
most significant results or findings
in relation to the objective of
the study, always supported with quantitative data (percentages, n, p-values, values of the
coefficients used, OR, RR or HR with their
respective 95%CI, etc.), and use tables and figures to
present all the results.
Data must be exact; do not make approximations
and always use two decimal
places in the percentages.
Do not include data obtained from statistical
analysis or tests or procedures
that have not been described
in the Statistical Analysis subsection. Hence the importance
of fully describing this subsection in the Methodology section.
If your
study is qualitative, present the results conforming
to what is
reported in the Methodology
section (e.g., if you include
excerpts from interviews, they must be identified
by means of the coding
reported in Methodology).
Tables
and/or figures must conform to the
instructions outlined in the "General Considerations"
section (Section 4) of these guidelines.
Do not place them at the end of
the article; they must appear
immediately after the paragraph in which they are first mentioned.
DiscussionDiscuss the
most important results/findings of your study
in relation to its objective and how they can be interpreted from the perspective and findings of similar studies.
While it
is possible to present a brief
overview of the topic addressed
by the study
in the “Discussion” section, it must
not exceed one or two
paragraphs at the beginning of this
section, as it is not the
space for a general review of the
literature; in fact, this overview must
have been made in the “Introduction”
section.
Please refrain
from repeating all the findings
of the study,
instead discuss only the most
important ones and compare them with what
has been reported in the relevant literature,
describing whether your findings coincide with or differ
from those reported by similar studies, and addressing the possible causes of discrepancies or the implications
of such discrepancies
or similarities.
Compare
and interpret your results in light of similar (e.g., similar design and population) and current (preferably published within the last
5 years, up to a maximum of 10 years)
studies reporting primary findings (e.g., research articles, clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyzes, among others). Please, avoid including
narrative reviews, letters to the editor, or reflection papers
reporting data from primary sources; instead, include said primary sources.
Findings can be discussed both in general and individually. We suggest mentioning the main findings
in a general manner in the first paragraph, and then discussing each finding separately
in different paragraphs. In
order to make this easier,
it is recommended
to discuss individual findings using the following options:
Discussion/comparison
of the finding
against the results reported by one, two
or three studies individually:
Report the
individual finding to be discussed and include the supporting data to make the
comparison easier (repeating the information
in this part is not an
issue because only the most
important findings will be discussed).
Mention whether
the finding is similar (totally or partially) or
different from what has been reported
in the comparison study, which must
be properly contextualized the first time it is mentioned
in the Discussion section (i.e., describing at least the basic
data of the study such as sample,
type of population,
and country or region or other relevant
data), reporting the exact finding of
that study (i.e., supported also with quantitative data); if there are other
comparative studies, repeat
the steps outlined in step two.
If the
finding is similar to what has been
reported in the comparison study or studies, discuss
the possible implications of your finding; if,
on the contrary,
it differs or differs partially
(e.g., it is similar to what
is described in one study, but
differs from what in reported in another or other
studies), explain the possible reason(s)
for such difference(s) (e.g., sample sizes, characteristics
of the study,
etc.)
When there
is a considerable amount of similar studies in the literature to compare and discuss the individual finding:
Report the
individual finding to be discussed and include the supporting data to make the
comparison easier (repeating the information
in this part is not an
issue because only the most
important findings will be discussed).
State whether
the finding is
in agreement with (totally or partially)
or differs from what is
reported in the literature; if possible, include the data reported in said studies using
ranges and add the respective references (3 or more studies).
Depending on
each case, discuss the possible implications
of the finding
(whether it is similar or different
from what has been reported in the relevant literature)
or the possible
reasons that may explain the
discrepancy.
Verify that
the data supporting the findings of
the comparison studies are accurate (do not make approximations)
and that they do match what is reported
in those studies; also, confirm that
the reference matches the study
from which the information was extracted.
At the end of
the section, describe the limitations and/or strengths of
the study. In the case of limitations,
if you deem
it relevant, it is possible
to make recommendations
on how to
address or solve them in further
studies.
Conclusion or
conclusions
The conclusion
or conclusions must be directly related to the
objective of the study and supported
by its results.
In this regard, avoid repeating all the study
results and only include the information
necessary to support the conclusion.
Conflicts of
interest
State whether
or not the
authors have conflicts of interest.
If none, add the following:
“None stated by the authors.”
Information mentioned
here must be consistent with what is declared
by each author
in the ICMJE conflicts of interest disclosure
form, which must be uploaded in step 2 of the submission
process.
This section
must be included after the Conclusion section.
Funding
State whether
funding was received for the
study. If not, add the
following: “None stated by the
authors.”
This section
must be included after the Conflicts of
interest section.
Acknowledgments
State whether
or not there
are acknowledgments. Only thank people who
directly or indirectly contributed to the completion
of the study.
If none, add the following:
“None stated by the authors.”
This section
must be included after the Funding section.
Note 1: If the article
is derived from a thesis (undergraduate or master's) or a doctoral thesis, this must
be reported in a note after the
conclusions, including the reference of
such thesis according to the
Vancouver referencing style.
Note 2: The copy of
the Institutional Ethics Committee approval document must be uploaded as a supplementary file in step 2 of the submission process (see the
Human and Animal Research section
of our Ethical
and Editorial Policies).
Peer review policy
Articles that comply
with the requirements outlined in the Authors Guidelines
of the Journal
and have been revised according to the feedback
provided by the editorial coordination during the preliminary
methodological review (for additional details, please refer to the
Editorial Workflow section)
will be subjected to a double-blind peer review process (i.e., the identities of the authors
and reviewers are concealed
from one another). To this
end, all details identifying the authors are removed from the manuscript
version that is submitted to
the peer reviewers, and the details of
the reviewers are also removed from the evaluation form that is
returned to the authors.
Peer reviewers
are experts in a given topic or subspecialty,
with an extensive academic and research background. These experts are selected based on their
academic (specialty, subspecialty, fellowship, MSc and PhD degrees) and research achievements (publication of biomedical articles on the topic
in the last 5 years). The editorial team are responsible for finding these
experts, and once selected,
they are invited to evaluate the
article (12-14 peers). Authors may propose
between 3 and 4 experts for the evaluation
of the article,
but their eligibility will be analyzed by the
editorial team.
Peer reviewers will have 20 calendar days to submit
their evaluation, but they may
request an extension. The invite to review the
article includes the necessary information
to carry out and submit the evaluation, namely, the Peer review guidelines, Authors guidelines, and the evaluation form (for further
details, see the Peer Review Guidelines). There are four possible evaluation
decisions: acceptance, acceptance with minor revisions, acceptance with major revisions, and rejection for publication.
Reviewers may also make additional
comments on the review form
and/or directly on the article.
If an article is
approved (conditional acceptance or acceptance)
by at least two peer reviewers, it will be formally
accepted for publication. However, articles with a conditional acceptance (acceptance with minor or major
revisions) will be accepted for publication
once the editorial team verifies that the
revisions requested by the peer reviewers
have been made or approves
the reasons for not making
some of the
changes requested.
Articles rejected by
two or more peer reviewers will be rejected. In the event of a disagreement,
the editorial team will make the
most appropriate decision based on the reasons
given by each peer reviewer and a new methodological review of the document.
The
editorial decision on the acceptance (full or conditional) or rejection of
the article will be notified to the authors,
who will also receive the
evaluation forms submitted by the
peers.
The lists of reviewers
who evaluated articles that were
assigned to volume 37 (2023) and 38 (2024), regardless
of whether they were approved
or rejected for publication, are available on the
Peer reviewers per volume.
Funding
The Rev.
Colomb. Ortop. Traumatol is funded
by the Sociedad Colombiana
de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología (SCCOT).
Advertising
Currently, the Journal’s
OJS platform features advertisements for institutions, events, or products related
to orthopedic and trauma surgery. It should
be noted that the advertisement acceptance process is directly overseen
by the SCCOT. Even though the
editor is aware of the advertising
pieces that will be published on the Journal's
website, the advertisement has no connection with its contents
in any way. Furthermore, editorial decisions
are not contingent upon or associated
with such advertising (refer to the Editorial
Independence section).
Marketing statement
The Journal does not
engage in any direct marketing activities, such as requesting manuscripts for publication on its own behalf
or similar requests.
It is also hereby
acknowledged that, once an article is
published in the journal, the SCCOT publishes marketing material about
it on its
social networks solely for the purpose
of dissemination.
Publication costs
The Rev.
Colomb. Ortop. Traumatol does not charge any
fees for the submission, processing (including the translation
of contents into English), and publication of articles.
Editorial independence
Although the Journal
is funded by the SCCOT, its
editorial decisions are autonomous,
in accordance with the provisions of subsection II-D.2. “Editorial freedom” of the
ICJME Recommendations for the Conduct,
Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals.
The Journal reserves the right to make
format, content, and typographical changes to the original text at different stages of the
editorial workflow, and authors
will be notified of these changes
for their review and approval.
Open access policy
This Journal provides open and immediate access to its contents
based on the premise that free access to biomedical
articles contributes to a greater global exchange of knowledge.
All content published in the Journal is
subject to the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Deed,
which allows the use, distribution, reproduction, and adaptation of the content
in any medium or format, provided
that credits are properly given, a link to the license
is included, and any changes made
are clearly identified.
Before submitting an article
to the Rev. Colomb. Ortop. Traumatol., please make sure that
you have read the Copyright Notice and that you have properly
filled out the copyright assignment of publication and reproduction rights and the authorship responsibility forms. For more information, please refer to
Copyright Notice and Authors Guidelines.
“Open Access Journal”