Instructions for Authors

01

Formats and their limits

So the shape of the manuscript is settled before it is written.

Word limits exclude the abstract, references, tables and figure legends. Every format is assessed against the same remit on the Aims and Scope page.

Original research

Up to 4,500 words and up to 50 references. Structured abstract. Full IMRaD structure.

Review

Up to 6,000 words, with a reference list proportionate to the scope of the review. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are submitted as reviews and follow PRISMA.

Case report

Up to 2,500 words, with up to 5 figures and tables combined. Follows CARE, and requires written consent to publish from the patient or their legal representative.

Brief communication or short report

Up to 1,500 words, for a complete but compact study, a focused method note or a confirmatory result.

Perspective or commentary

1,500 to 2,500 words, presenting an argument about a question, a method or a practice in nephrology.

If a manuscript does not fit any of these shapes, write to the editorial office before preparing it rather than after.

02

Structure of the manuscript

So a reviewer can find what they need in the place they expect it.

Title page, submitted as a separate file

• full title, and a running title of up to 50 characters
• every author’s full name, affiliation and ORCID iD
• the corresponding author’s email address
• funding, competing interests, acknowledgments and the author-contribution statement

Abstract and keywords

• structured abstract of 250 to 300 words, under Background, Methods, Results and Conclusions
• 4 to 6 keywords
• no references, and no undefined abbreviation, in the abstract

Main text

• Introduction — the question, what is already known, and the objective. State the hypothesis where the design has one.
• Methods — design, setting, participants or specimens, inclusion and exclusion criteria, assays and instruments with sources, and the statistical plan. Give enough detail for the work to be repeated.
• Results — findings in a logical order, with effect sizes and confidence intervals rather than p values alone. Report results that do not support the hypothesis as fully as those that do, and label every subgroup or post-hoc analysis as such.
• Discussion — what the findings mean, how they sit against the existing literature, what they imply for research or care, and the limitations of the design. Keep conclusions within what the evidence supports.

Declarations follow the discussion: funding, competing interests, author contributions, ethics approval, consent, and the data-availability statement.

03

File preparation

So production does not have to ask for the files again.

Manuscript file

Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx). LaTeX sources are accepted with a PDF of the compiled manuscript.

Type and spacing

12-point Times New Roman or Arial, double-spaced, 1-inch margins on all sides.

Numbering

Pages numbered consecutively from the title page, with continuous line numbers throughout.

Figures

One file per figure, at 300 dpi or better, in TIFF, EPS or high-quality PDF. Labels legible at the size they will print. Color figures carry no additional charge.

Tables

Editable Word tables, each with a title above it, abbreviations defined in footnotes, and enough information to be read without the main text.

Supplementary files

Extended data, protocols, additional figures, video and analysis code, each cited in the main text. Supplementary files are reviewed with the manuscript and published alongside it.

Material reproduced from another source — a figure, a table, a long quotation, an instrument — requires written permission from the rights holder, and the permission is cited in the legend or footnote.

04

References

So a reader can reach every source the manuscript relies on.

Vancouver numbered style, in order of first citation in the text, with a DOI where one exists. List the first three authors followed by et al. Verify every reference against the source rather than against another reference list.

Cite the primary source rather than a review of it wherever the claim depends on the primary result.

05

Reporting, ethics and data

So the manuscript carries the evidence its claims rest on.

Report the study against the guideline for its design, and submit the completed checklist with the manuscript:

CONSORT

randomized controlled trials

STROBE

cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies

PRISMA

systematic reviews and meta-analyses

CARE

case reports

STARD

diagnostic and prognostic accuracy studies

ARRIVE

animal research

SPIRIT

trial protocols

Give the statistical plan in the Methods: the test used and why, how missing data were handled, how covariates were chosen, the software and version, and whether any analysis was decided after the data were seen.

Research involving people requires named ethics-committee approval with the reference number in the Methods, and a description of how consent was obtained; identifiable material requires written consent to publish; animal studies require institutional animal-care approval. The full requirements are on the Editorial Policies page.

06

Declarations and AI use

So contribution, interest and tool use are all on the record.

Every manuscript carries an author-contribution statement using the CRediT taxonomy, and every listed author must meet the ICMJE authorship criteria and approve the submitted version. Funding is named with grant numbers, and the role of the funder in the design, conduct, analysis and reporting is stated. Competing interests are declared in full; where there are none, the statement says so.

Disclose any use of a generative AI tool in preparing the manuscript, naming the tool and what it was used for. Authors remain responsible for everything they submit, including material an AI tool helped produce, and for verifying that every cited source exists and supports the claim made. An AI tool is not listed as an author.

07

Requesting double-blind review

So an anonymized submission is actually anonymous.

Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. Ask for it in the cover letter or the submission form, and check the manuscript file properties as well as the text, since an author name often survives in the document metadata.

08

Cover letter

So the editor can place the manuscript quickly.

Address the cover letter to the Editor-in-Chief and use it to say what the study asked and found, why it fits this journal, that the work is original and not under consideration elsewhere, and whether any related manuscript is under consideration anywhere. Declare competing interests, and name any reviewer you would like considered or excluded, with the reason. Requesting double-blind review is done here.

09

After submission

So the steps after the first decision are not a surprise.

All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal’s scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review. Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts. Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.

A revision is returned with a point-by-point response addressing every reviewer comment, saying what changed and where. Where a suggestion was not adopted, give the scientific reason. Submit the revised manuscript with changes tracked, and a clean copy alongside it.

Proofs are sent to the corresponding author before publication for the correction of errors introduced in production; substantive changes to the accepted science are handled as a correction after publication rather than at proof. The article processing charge falls due after acceptance and is set out on the Article Processing Charges page.

10

Language

So a language question is a language question, and nothing more.

Manuscripts are published in English. Writing should be clear enough for a reviewer to follow the argument and the methods; where English is not an author’s first language, a colleague’s reading or a professional language service before submission usually achieves that. Any such service is optional, is arranged and paid for by the author, and is independent of the editorial process: using one has no bearing on the review or the decision. Where writing obscures the science, the editorial office asks for a revised manuscript before review rather than sending an unclear manuscript to reviewers.