Authors

• Manuscript Preparation
• Editorial Policies
• Patient Consent Forms
• License Forms
• Peer Review
• Submission and Production Processes

a) If the requirement for written informed consent was waived by the IRB, a detailed explanation must be provided. If a waiver from the IRB was obtained, the authors must provide documentation from the respective IRB that such waiver was granted, and this must be dated. Find more information about ethical approval.

• Units of measure
• Clinical trial names
• Any name of a gene (e.g., BRCA) or serologic market (e.g., CA125)

• Statistical terms: SPSS, Stata, CI, HR, OR, RR (ratio terms)
• The following organizations and groups: NCI, WHO, FDA, CDC, NCCN, FIGO, NCDB, EORTC, EGOG
• The following terms: HPV, Pap, MRI, USG, CT, PET/CT, HIPEC, RIFLE, FDG, SLN,  AUC, VIN, dVIN, HSIL, PD-L1, PARP, QoL, TCGA, VEGF, PD-1, CD8+/FOXP3+, PI3K, AKT, mTOR, TIL, NK, DNA, QLQ-C30, RECIST, LVSI, MMRd, POLEmut, p53abn, and NSMP

o Two corresponding authors can be listed. Indicate this with a footnote. o Equal contributions should also be indicated with a footnote.

o This manuscript was published as a preprint (and provide link).

o The manuscript was presented as an Abstract or poster presentation at X meeting.

• The main manuscript document file must be in Word doc format.
• Tables should not be uploaded separately. All tables must be in the manuscript document after the references section. (Do not embed tables or figures in the main running text.) Tables should be in portrait orientation, not landscape.
• Each figure should be uploaded as a separate “Image” file. Figures may only be in TIFF, EPS, PDF, or JPEG format. Multiple figures should not be submitted as one PDF document.
• Multi-panel figures must be presented in one file and on one page, with panels labeled clearly (A, B, C).
• Supplemental Material must be in PDF format.

• Excluded Article Types
• Original research
• Review
• Letter
• Commentary
• Editorial
• Video article
• Clinical Trial
• Corners of the World
• Images
• Pathology Archives
• Tumor Board
• Editorial
• Rapid Responses

• • • What is already known on this topic – Summarise the state of scientific knowledge on this subject before you did your study and why this study needed to be done
    • What this study adds – Summarise what we now know as a result of this study that we did not know before
    • How this study might affect research, practice or policy – Summarise the implications of this study

• Summary of Main Results: In this section, authors must clearly and concretely provide the main findings of their study with a particular focus on the primary objective of the study as the first statement of the Discussion section. Subsequently, the authors should provide the main findings on any secondary objective of the study. Authors should refrain from interpreting the findings and the potential implications of their results in this section and only findings that are supported by the data presented in the Results section should be documented. It is important to highlight that information should not be repetitive and absolute data that is already presented in the Results should not be repeated in this section.
• Results in the Context of Published Literature: In this section of the Discussion, the authors should provide a detailed analysis on how the results of their study either agree or disagree with the most relevant data published in the literature thus far. An evaluation of previously published studies should be focused and directed at information that either agrees or refutes the results presented in the current study. The authors should also provide fair and balanced analysis on the reasons as to why other data previously published in the literature may differ from their findings. The authors should focus their discussion on the most relevant and pertinent studies, ideally highlighting those studies with highest quality and evidence-based relevance. It is expected that authors provide details on potential gaps or flaws in the studies that are being presented from the literature.
• Strengths and Weaknesses: In this section, the authors should provide a detailed outline as to the strengths of the study. Such strengths should be supported by the data provided and the results obtained in the study. These itemized points should highlight reasons as to why this study provided added value to the literature. The section should also include recognized weaknesses of the study as perceived by the authors and should also reflect additional weaknesses provided by Reviewers.
• Implications for Practice and Future Research: In this section, the authors should highlight details as to what is the most impacting contribution to the literature from their study. The emphasis should be on how the results of their study should impact patient care or future research directions. The primary focus should not be a reaffirmation of prior published literature and, therefore, the authors should provide clear and concrete statements as to what is the contribution to the literature from their study. A detailed, clear, and direct message regarding the gap in knowledge that is being filled with the results from their study.

• • • • Background (2 sentences)
      • Primary Objective(s) (1-2 sentences). Please do not include secondary/exploratory objectives in abstract
      • Study Hypothesis (1 sentence)
      • Trial Design (3-4 sentences)
      • Major Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria (2-3 sentences)
      • Primary Endpoint(s) (1-2 sentence)
      • Sample Size
      • Estimated Dates for Completing Accrual and Presenting Results
      • Trial Registration

• • • • • • • Copyright and authors’ rights
            • Peer review process
            • Article Processing Charges
            • Article Transfer Service
            • Data Checks
            • Data Sharing
            • Preprints
            • ORCID IDs
            • Reviewing for IJGC
            • Supplements

• The journal editor, an editorial board member or a learned society may wish to organise a meeting, sponsorship may be sought and the proceedings published as a supplement.
• The journal editor, editorial board member or learned society may wish to commission a supplement on a particular theme or topic. Again, sponsorship may be sought.
• The BMJPG itself may have proposals for supplements where sponsorship may be necessary.
• A sponsoring organisation, often a pharmaceutical company or a charitable foundation, that wishes to arrange a meeting, the proceedings of which will be published as a supplement.

• Journal in which you would like the supplement published
• Title of supplement and/or meeting on which it is based
• Date of meeting on which it is based
• Proposed table of contents with provisional article titles and proposed authors
• An indication of whether authors have agreed to participate
• Sponsor information including any relevant deadlines
• An indication of the expected length of each paper Guest Editor proposals if appropriate