A Systematic Review is more than a summary of the literature. A systematic review uses structured and systematic methods to source, assess, include, exclude and critically analyze the depth and breadth of current literature on a given topic. In doing so, it provides a rigorous approach to generating new knowledge. A systematic review should provide appraisal and synthesis against primary published literature that has been identified through a rigorous, non-biased strategy that is clearly documented as part of the manuscript. Variations on the traditional systematic review could include cost effectiveness analyses and meta analyses. Per PRISMA guidelines, systematic reviews and meta-analyses must be identified as such in the article title.

Please note that the CJRT also publishes Narrative Reviews, which are evidence-based reviews of topics of relevance to respiratory therapists that require a less rigorous (though scholarly and comprehensive) review and synthesis.

On submission you will be asked to upload:

• Conflict of Interest Form– This form must be completed by each author and submitted with the manuscript.
• Title Page & Cover Letter – See Manuscript Preparation section below for what should be included in these documents.
• Structured abstract – The abstract must be written in a structured format with the following headings: Introduction/Background, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion.
• Manuscript (blinded) – Please add line numbers to your document. Remove all author-identifying information. Institution and author names within the text should be substituted with generic phrases, such as “the institute” or “the author(s).” Where appropriate, authors may also substitute generic characters, such as “XXXX.” Body of text should be between 2,500-3,000 words (word limit not strictly enforced, if papers are too long this will be addressed in peer review).
• Checklist – PRISMA checklist  – this would not apply to narrative reviews.
• Keywords – Provide a maximum of 6 keywords (that are not included in the title) on your title page. The usage of MeSH terms is recommended. Please avoid, where possible, general and plural terms and multiple concepts (avoid, for example, ‘and’, ‘of’). Be sparing of abbreviations: only abbreviations firmly established in the field may be eligible. These keywords will be used for indexing purposes.
• Disclosures – See Manuscript Preparation section below. This template covers Acknowledgments, Contributors, Funding, Competing interests and Ethical approval.
• References – These must be listed in numerical order as they appear in the text. They only need to be complete and correct – once manuscripts are accepted, references will for formatted according to house style (see Manuscript Preparation below for more detail).
• Figures and Tables – Not to exceed 6 total (includes both tables and figures). Tables summarizing literature used in the systematic review should be included as appendix material.

This article type highlights innovative approaches to, or evaluation of, any aspect of the theory or practice of respiratory therapy. This could include, without being limited to, process/protocol improvement, program evaluation, quality improvement, or practice change. These are similar in format to a research paper, but the reporting of results and analysis is less vigorous as these are a faster way of disseminating what is happening on the front lines of clinical practice, and thus do not always fall neatly into traditional research reporting. Quality improvement brings evidence into practice, while research introduces new knowledge. Note that no results are required to submit in this format, and these submissions are generally REB exempt. On submission, you will be asked to upload:

• Conflict of Interest Form– This form must be completed by each author and submitted with the manuscript.
• Title Page & Cover Letter – See Manuscript Preparation section below for what should be included in these documents.
• Structured abstract – The abstract must be written in a structured format with the following headings as applicable: Introduction/Background, Approach, Findings, Discussion, Conclusion/Practice implications.
• Manuscript – Please add line numbers to your document. Body of text should be between 2,500-3,000 words  (word limit not strictly enforced, if papers are too long this will be addressed in peer review).
• Keywords – Provide a maximum of 6 keywords (that are not included in the title) on your title page. The usage of MeSH terms is recommended. Please avoid, where possible, general and plural terms and multiple concepts (avoid, for example, ‘and’, ‘of’). Be sparing of abbreviations: only abbreviations firmly established in the field may be eligible. These keywords will be used for indexing purposes.
• Disclosures – See Manuscript Preparation section below. This template covers Acknowledgments, Contributors, Funding, Competing interests and Ethical approval.
• References – These must be listed in numerical order as they appear in the text. They only need to be complete and correct – once manuscripts are accepted, references will for formatted according to house style (see Manuscript Preparation below for more detail).
• Figures and Tables – Not to exceed 4 total (includes both tables and figures).

These papers are not simply an interesting case. They present how interesting and challenging cases are assessed and how treatment options are determined. Clinical case studies convey clear lessons learned in the practice or administration of respiratory therapy and care. These articles usually include the presentation, history, examination, investigations, management and outcomes in order to educate the reader and highlight points of reflection and treatment challenges. The use of references is required and the use of visual aids such as tables, flow charts and images are encouraged.  Cases do not need to be rare but should present some insights that may not be typical in clinical practice. Articles need to clearly define the case and its outcomes, and link that through discussion and evidence to provide clear connections to the importance to clinical practice or “clinical pearls / teaching points”. On submission, you will be asked to upload:

• Conflict of Interest Form– This form must be completed by each author and submitted with the manuscript.
• Title Page & Cover Letter – See Manuscript Preparation section below for what should be included in these documents.
• Structured abstract – e.g. Introduction; Case and outcomes, Discussion, Conclusion.
• Manuscript (blinded) – Please add line numbers to your document. Standard scientific article format (Intro/Background; Case and outcomes, Discussion and teaching points, recommendations and clinical pearls, Conclusion). Remove all author-identifying information. Institution and author names within the text should be substituted with generic phrases, such as “the institute” or “the author(s).” Where appropriate, authors may also substitute generic characters, such as “XXXX.” Body of text should be between 800-1,000 words (word limit not strictly enforced, if papers are too long this will be addressed in peer review).
• Keywords – Provide a maximum of 6 keywords (that are not included in the title) on your title page. The usage of MeSH terms is recommended. Please avoid, where possible, general and plural terms and multiple concepts (avoid, for example, ‘and’, ‘of’). Be sparing of abbreviations: only abbreviations firmly established in the field may be eligible. These keywords will be used for indexing purposes.
• Disclosures – See Manuscript Preparation section below. This template covers Acknowledgments, Contributors, Funding, Competing interests and Ethical approval.
• Checklist – CARE checklist
• References – These must be listed in numerical order as they appear in the text. They only need to be complete and correct – once manuscripts are accepted, references will for formatted according to house style.

Figures and Tables – Not to exceed 6 total (includes both tables and figures).

Commentary papers are short, scholarly writings (with no structured abstract) that comment on an issue and/or perspective relevant to respiratory therapy and respiratory health. Note that these will not be reviewed through the traditional peer review process, but rather reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and Deputy Editor for accuracy, appropriateness and suitability with our audience. This type of article includes the traditional editorial style commentary, issues / controversies style debate. Commentaries (invited or uninvited) typically focus on a key issue and perspective. Issues / controversies are generally invited but could be unsolicited submissions where a topic is scrutinized and debated from more than one perspective. On submission, you will be asked to upload:

• Conflict of Interest Form– This form must be completed by each author and submitted with the manuscript.
• Title Page & Cover Letter – See Manuscript Preparation section below for what should be included in these documents.
• Unstructured abstract or brief summary to provide context.
• Manuscript Please add line numbers to your document. Body of text should be between 1,500-2,000 words for a commentary (word limit not strictly enforced, if papers are too long this will be addressed in peer review) and 2500-3000 for issue/controversy style article.
• Taxonomy & Keywords – Please select at least 2 taxonomy terms; these are not specific to our profession but are general medical terms. Keywords can be chosen to reflect the specific content.
• Disclosures – See Manuscript Preparation section below. This template covers Acknowledgments, Contributors, Funding, Competing interests and Ethical approval.
• References – These must be listed in numerical order as they appear in the text. They only need to be complete and correct – once manuscripts are accepted, references will for formatted according to house style (see Manuscript Preparation below for more detail).
• Figures and Tables – Not to exceed 4 total (includes both tables and figures). Tables summarizing literature used in the systematic review should be included as appendix material.

Letters to the Editor commenting on recently published articles in the CJRT are welcomed and should be submitted no later than two months following the publication of the article of interest. Letters to the Editor should be brief, argumentative, and constructive, highlighting salient issues addressed (or overlooked) in the article of interest. Letters to the Editor may also present original material that may not be suitable for a full-length article. Suggested length of 750 words with two tables or figures. Please submit directly to the Managing Editor: editor@csrt.com

The success of CJRT is a direct reflection of our dedicated team of peer reviewers who critically evaluate manuscript submissions. These reviews assist the editorial board in making publication decisions, and guide authors in strengthening their professional writing. Reviewers provide objective, insightful, and rigorous critiques of submitted manuscripts, enhancing the clinical relevance and scientific quality of articles published in CJRT and helping respiratory therapists and those in related professions advance quality and innovation in patient care.

All manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined in this document. Please note that special issues and/or conference proceedings may have different peer review procedures involving, for example, Guest Editors, conference organizers or scientific committees. This will be communicated to contributing authors in these cases.

All allegations of misconduct will be referred to the Editor-in-Chief, who will review the circumstances in consultation with the Deputy Editor. All such allegations will be kept confidential; the number of inquiries and those involved will be kept to the minimum necessary to achieve this end. Initial fact-finding will usually include a request to all the involved parties to state their case, and explain the circumstances, in writing. In questions of research misconduct centering on methods or technical issues, the Editor-In-Chief may confidentially consult experts who are blinded to the identity of the individuals, or if the allegation is against an editor, an outside editor expert. The Editor-In-Chief and Deputy Editor will arrive at a conclusion as to whether there is enough evidence to lead a reasonable person to believe there is a possibility of misconduct. Their goal is not to determine if actual misconduct occurred, or the precise details of that misconduct. When allegations concern authors, the peer review and publication process for the manuscript in question will be halted while the process above is carried out. The investigation described above will be completed even if the authors withdraw their paper, and the responses below will still be considered. In the case of allegations against reviewers or editors, they will be replaced in the review process while the matter is investigated. The CJRT will deal with any further action (such as notifying the author’s institution) on a case-by-case basis. The most common forms of scientific misconduct can be found on the ORI publication Analysis of Institutional Policies for Responding to Allegations of Scientific Misconduct (http://ori.dhhs.gov/).

The potential for conflict of interest exists when an author, the author’s institution, reviewer or editor has financial relationships (such as employment, consultancy, stock ownership, honoraria and paid expert testimony) that may inappropriately influence his or her actions. Other forms of conflict of interest include personal, academic and intellectual issues. Any potential conflict of interest should be disclosed in the cover letter. Sources of outside support for research, including funding, equipment, and drugs, must be named in the cover letter. If an author has no conflicts of interest to declare, this must be explicitly stated. Authors should contact the Editorial Office with questions or concerns but should err on the side of inclusion when in doubt. Manuscripts that fail to include the complete statements of all authors upon submission will be returned to the corresponding author and will delay the processing and evaluation of the manuscript. The CJRT adheres to the policy on conflict of interest from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. If, in the editor’s judgment, the information disclosed by the author represents a ̕ potential conflict of interest, it may be made available to reviewers and may be published at the editor’s discretion; authors will be informed of the decision before publication. The editor will discuss with the authors on an individual basis the method by which any conflicts of interest will be communicated to readers. Editors and reviewers for the CJRT are responsible for disclosing to the editor-in-chief any personal or financial relationship that may bias their work during the peer review process and recuse themselves when such conflicts are of sufficient.

It is recommended that applicants consider accounting for gender as a socio-cultural determinant of health in clinical, health system and population health studies where appropriate. Additionally, it is recommended that researchers consider accounting for sex as a biological variable in basic science, clinical, health system and population health studies where appropriate. See Key Considerations for the appropriate integration of sex and gender in research from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. This site also offers tools for researchers with further tips on integrating sex and gender into research.

Studies describing research involving humans or animals will not be considered for publication unless the study was approved by the authors’ Research Ethics Board (REB) or Institutional Review Board (IRB), and carried out using ethical and appropriate methods. A statement concerning REB approval must be included in the beginning of the Methods section of all research articles, including the name of the approving REB and the date of approval. Any systematic gathering of patient or volunteer data must also be approved by a local REB or adhere to recognized standards in the area, such as for quality improvement initiatives. If in doubt, consult your institution’s REB for guidance.

The patients’ rights to privacy should not be infringed. ̕Identifying information must be deleted from the text, figures and tables, unless it is essential for scientific purposes and the patient gives written informed consent for publication after being shown the manuscript to be published. Manuscripts containing the results of experimental studies on human participants must disclose, in the first paragraph of the Materials and Methods section, whether informed consent was obtained from patients in the study after the nature of the procedure had been fully explained. For further information on informed consent, see the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

Authors may find the use of the A Project Ethics Community Consensus Initiative (ARECCI) Ethics Screening Tool helpful for the purpose of reviewing ethical considerations in quality improvement (QI) projects. This tool can assist in evaluating projects to ensure that relevant ethical considerations are included in your submitted manuscript and for ensuring that ethical obligations have been met. Note that we may ask for a letter of no objection from the applicable REB in instances where authors decide  to use an ARECCI. See the following for further information:

• To identify and integrate appropriate ethics considerations into your project: ARECCI Ethics Guidelines for Quality Improvement and Evaluation Projects.
• To determine the level of risk for project participants and appropriate ethics review requirements: ARECCI Ethics Screening Tool.

This includes several forms:

• General plagiarism – the use of others’ published and unpublished ideas or words (or other intellectual property) without attribution or permission, and presenting them as new and original rather than derived from an existing source. Plagiarism is scientific misconduct (see Permissions).
• Self-plagiarism – this refers to the practice of an author using portions of their previous writings on the same topic in another of their publications, without specifically citing it formally in quotes. This practice is widespread and sometimes unintentional, as there are only so many ways to say the same thing on many occasions, particularly when writing the Methods section of an article. However, it is considered scientific misconduct if not properly attributed, or if large sections are simply copied and pasted.
• Divided publication/redundant publication – sometimes called “salami” publication, where papers cover the same population, methods, and question. A distinction needs to be made between salami and redundant publication: where there is a two thirds overlap, it is redundant publication. If the hypotheses were completely separate questions, then it is acceptable for them to be posed in two separate papers. If they are related questions, or very closely related, then they should be published as a single paper. Splitting up papers by outcomes (“salami slicing”) is not legitimate.

Submission of an article implies that the work described has not been published previously (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis or as an electronic preprint), that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out, and that, if accepted, it will not be published elsewhere including electronically in the same form, in English or in any other language, without the written consent of the copyright-holder.