Proposed definitions of article wording for publications by ERA bodies

Position statements by the ERA Council should be published in NDT and/or CKJ, Journals of the Association, and should not undergo review. It is strongly advised that no veto should be applied by the Editor.

All other articles (consensus, controversy, review-analysis, endorsements, commentary) should fall under the publication responsibility of the Editor and should always undergo detailed review in case NDT or CKJ are the publication organs.

ERA will cover the open access fees only for paper submitted, on behalf of an ERA body (Committee/WG) and accepted for publication in NDT or CKJ.

Position statements

A strong wording which should be reserved for the Council to position the Association in the realm of an important topic. Position statements are normally a rare event.

Procedure:

This kind of documents must be written, discussed and approved by the Council

Consensus statements 

Are documents normally written by Working Groups or other ERA bodies on any given topic. They can also be written in collaboration with Working Groups or other ERA bodies and/or other Societies.

Procedure:

• Notify the intention to write a particular article to the Renal Science Chair (RSC); a simple email (with the R&D Manager in cc) including the topic and the persons involved. The RSC is notified for his/her information
• Fill in the application form needed for the Scientific Advisory Board’s evaluation; the SAB will reply within two weeks. There is no need to submit the full article (that will be only submitted to the Journal chosen for the eventual publication), since the SAB will exclusively evaluate the proposal based on the content in the application form
• The Council must receive SAB’s evaluation and approve/not approve the proposal
• If the Council approves and when the final version is ready, the definite version of the paper must be circulated to all Board members of the bodies involved (for their information) before the official submission for publication on behalf of the ERA body (Committee/WG) can be done
• Submit the paper to the selected Journal (preferably NDT or CKJ)

Other articles

1. Controversy (conference) reports

Similar to consensus statements, controversy statements are used by Working Groups/Committees in relation to the topic or articles under discussion. These reports usually have the size of a full paper.

2. Meta-analysis or review articles

Any work of ERA Working Groups and/or other ERA bodies which falls into these categories (self explanatory). Articles can also be worded differently, under the umbrella of Consensus or Controversy.

3. Endorsements/Commentary

Documents normally released by ERBP in response to any guideline generated by other parties. Endorsements usually have a word count limitation which fits into the size of an editorial, but length is a matter of negotiation with the Editor of the selected Journal (preferably NDT or CKJ).

4. Original Research Articles

These are the most common type of journal article. Normally released by ERA Working Groups and/or other ERA bodies as conclusion of clinical or basic research.

Procedure for: Controversy (conference) reports; Meta-analysis or review articles; Endorsements/Commentary; Original Research Articles

• Notify the intention to write a particular article to the Renal Science Chair (RSC); a simple email (with the R&D Manager in cc) including the topic and the persons involved. The RSC is notified for his/her information
• The definite version of the paper must be circulated to all Board members of the bodies involved (for their information) before the official submission for publication on behalf of the ERA body (Committee/WG) can be done
• Submit the paper to the selected Journal (preferably NDT or CKJ)
• These types of articles are NOT subject to the Scientific Advisory Board’s evaluation.

Table 1: summary of applicable procedure based by type of the article