Skip to Main Content
Skip Nav Destination

NeoReviews Author Guidelines

NeoReviews is the American Academy of Pediatrics monthly peer-reviewed continuing medical education journal designed to keep the neonatology clinician current in all areas of neonatal medicine and to assist those participating in the Maintenance of Certification program of the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP). 

The journal is one of the key components of the Academy’s continuing medical education program for neonatologists, comprising NeoReviews and the NeoReviewsPlus Self-Assessment.

The journal’s articles are intended to be state-of-the-art contributions that add significantly and relevantly to the knowledge and ability of the neonatology clinician to deal with his or her patients and their problems.

Because articles are mapped to the ABP neonatal-perinatal medicine content outline, most NeoReviews articles are solicited at the invitation of the editor-in-chief. Some articles are spontaneously submitted or are solicited at the invitation of the editor-in-chief based on knowledge gaps determined by the journal’s editorial board that are not mapped to the ABP general pediatrics content outline.

In each issue, two review articles include quiz questions formulated by topic experts. Subscribers must attain a minimum passing score on each review article’s quiz to qualify for Maintenance of Certification Part 2 (Lifelong Learning and Self-Assessment) points and continuing medical education credits.

Authors should be aware that ALL manuscripts automatically are screened for potential plagiarism. If potential plagiarism is detected, an inquiry will be launched; if plagiarism is confirmed, consequences result. To avoid this, before submitting a manuscript, consider running it through CrossRef or other plagiarism detection software to remedy any similarity that is detected.

General Guidelines

Manuscript Elements


Article Types


General Guidelines

Style Requirements: All aspects of the manuscript creation, including the formatting of tables, illustrations, references, grammar, punctuation, usage, and scientific writing style, should be prepared according to the most current AMA Manual of Style.

 Formatting Requirements:  All submissions must adhere to the following format:

Main manuscript should be submitted to the NeoReviews content management system as a Microsoft Word document. The journal cannot accept PDF files of manuscripts.

  • Do not include page headers, footers, page numbers, or line numbers in new submissions.
  • Figures must be submitted separately; the journal cannot accept figures embedded in Word documents.
  • On the other hand, tables MUST be embedded in the manuscript file, at the end of the document, following the references.
  • Refer to the “Article Types” section for specific guidelines on preparing a manuscript in a particular category.

Units of Measure: Conventional measurement units should be used, followed by Système International (SI) units in parentheses, for example: platelet count of 142×103/μL (142×109/L). If authors fail to provide SI units, the manuscript will be unsubmitted. For SI conversion tables, see AMA Manual of Style, 10th edition, 2007. 

Titles: Titles are limited to a count of 90 characters or less in the journal’s content management system. Avoid abbreviations and acronyms. The full title will appear on the article, on the table of contents, and in all subsequent references to the article, including footnotes and indexing services. The title entered by authors must match the title on the manuscript.

Permissions: For permission to use previously published material, authors should contact the copyright owner (usually the publisher). Authors essentially should ask for all rights into perpetuity for print and electronic formats and for all future formats to be developed. 

Authors are responsible for: obtaining permissions for any tables, images, figures or video reproduced or adapted from another publication; paying for any related permission costs; and providing the permission-granting forms and materials to the NeoReviews staff.

Model Release: Photographs in which any patients are identifiable should be submitted only after written parental permission has been obtained.  It is the responsibility of the author to obtain this permission, preferably with the AAP Model Release Form, and to provide the model release form to the editorial staff of NeoReviews.  

Every effort should be made to maintain the patient’s privacy by obscuring his or her identity, including blacking out the eyes as needed, deleting identifying information on radiographs, and avoiding references to specific subjects in the text of the article, legend or caption, and headline. If the child’s identity cannot be obscured, the author should avoid using the child’s surname in any voice-over. 

For audio and video files, the author first and foremost should make certain that parental consent has been obtained to use the child’s image for educational purposes in print and online and in any and all formats to be developed into perpetuity.  Note the difference between educational purposes (subscriber access only) and promotional purposes (open access, reprint covers, homepages, or other online promotional sites). 

Acceptance Criteria

Relevance to readers is of primary importance in manuscript selection. The readership includes general and specialist pediatricians, pediatric researchers and educators, and child health policy-makers. NeoReviews receives many more high-quality manuscripts than can be accommodated in our available space. The acceptance rate is approximately 10%. An article that is thought by the editors to not be relevant to readers, outside of scope, or very unlikely to be accepted may be rejected without review. All manuscripts considered for publication are peer reviewed, including those written by members of the Editorial Board. Peer reviewers are selected by the editors. Selection is based on their expertise in the topic of the manuscript. Generally, at least 2 reviews are required before a decision is rendered. Authors can suggest reviewers who they believe should not review the manuscript but should provide a clear rationale for this request. 

Authors should carefully follow instructions for manuscript preparation and ensure that the manuscript is proofread before submission. Manuscripts that do not follow the author instructions will not be considered for review. Careless preparation of a manuscript raises concerns about the quality of the work and makes acceptance less likely. Manuscripts are electronically scanned for plagiarism. Authors will be contacted if there is concern about potential plagiarism. NeoReviews follows the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics for concerns about plagiarism or any other manuscript-related ethical issue.

Manuscripts are judged on the importance, originality, scientific strength, clinical relevance, and clarity of content. NeoReviews does not publish manuscripts that focus only on animal research. Refer to the sections below on the particular considerations for each of the manuscript types that appear in the journal. Authors should also consider the comprehensive reporting guidelines for a wide variety of study designs that are available at These can be helpful in improving manuscript clarity and completeness. Note that authors submitting manuscripts describing adverse drug or medical device events or product problems should also report these to the appropriate governmental agency. Responses to a published article should be submitted as online comments. The editors will determine which comments will be published in the journal as Letters to the Editor.

After the reviews are received, the editors may take one of the following actions: Accept; Accept with Revisions; Reject with option to Resubmit; or Reject. A rejected manuscript may not be resubmitted. A manuscript may be rejected with an option to resubmit with extensive revision. The resubmitted manuscript receives an additional round of peer review (which may include new reviewers), and the manuscript may or may not be accepted. A decision of Accept with Revision indicates that the editors intend to accept the manuscript contingent on adequate response to reviewers. A decision of Accept, which is exceedingly rare on first submission, indicates that the manuscript is ready to place into production without further modification. Appeals on decisions will be considered by the editorial board on a case-by-case basis.

Publication Ethics

Authorship. An “author” is someone who has made substantive intellectual contributions to a published study. Each author is required to meet ALL FOUR of the following criteria:

  1. Substantial contribution(s) to conception, design, acquisition of data or analysis and interpretation of data; and
  2. Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and
  3. Final approval of the version to be published, and
  4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

NOTE: Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group alone does not constitute a sufficient basis for authorship.

All persons listed as authors must meet these criteria, and all persons who meet these criteria must be listed as authors. Articles submitted with an unexpectedly large number of authors invite scrutiny by editors and reviewers for clear justification for the presence of each person on the authorship list.

The author list included upon first submission will be considered the FINAL author list.

Decide authorship issues, including the order, before submission. NeoReviews does not allow addition or removal of authors or changes to the author order after a manuscript is submitted without explicit approval from the editors.

If published, author names and affiliations will appear as seen in the submitted manuscript Word document and the final typeset proofs. All authors must ensure that their information is correct.

Conflict of Interest and Disclosure. After a paper is accepted by NeoReviews for publication, all authors must submit conflict of interest and disclosure forms. NeoReviews adheres to the policy and uses the standardized disclosure form of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). The collection of the forms is automated within the online system.

IRB Approval. All studies that involve human subjects must be approved or deemed exempt by an official institutional review board; this should be noted in the Methods section of the manuscript.

Industry Sponsorship. All industry sponsorship must be declared in the manuscript. Manuscripts in which all authors are employed by a commercial entity can raise additional scrutiny from the editorial board.

Registration of Clinical Trials. All clinical trials must be registered in a World Health organization-approved Clinical Trial registry prior to enrollment of the first subject. The registry name and registration number should be included on the title page. Reports of unregistered trials will be returned to authors without review. Publication of the results of a trial that was initiated prior to the ICMJE requirement for trial registration will be considered by the editors on a case-by-case basis.

Suspected Errors and Allegations of Misconduct. NeoReviews follows the processes outlined in the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) flowcharts when investigating suspected errors and allegations of misconduct. Please be aware that all investigations are confidential. If an error has been found or misconduct has been identified, the journal will publicly acknowledge the outcome through an erratum or retraction, depending on the severity of the issue. Investigations that result in no error or misconduct being found will not be publicized.

Editorial Board Members as Authors. The journal allows editorial board members to submit articles for consideration. These articles undergo the same rigorous peer review as all other submissions. The manuscript management system automatically blinds a user with administrative access from viewing a manuscript for which they are an author, so author editorial board members cannot view the manuscript from the administrative side once it has been submitted.

Editor Conflict of Interest: Journal editors recuse themselves from manuscripts for which they have a conflict of interest.

Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools do not qualify for authorship. To qualify, authors must meet all four of the following criteria1:

  1. Substantial contribution(s) to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; and
  2. Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and
  3. Final approval of the version to be published, and
  4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

AI tools cannot take responsibility for the accuracy or integrity of a manuscript and, therefore, do not qualify for authorship.2

While the use of AI tools is discouraged, if generative AI tools are used in any part of manuscript preparation, from writing to data analysis to image creation, the authors must report it in the Methods and Acknowledgments sections3 and note use of an AI tool in the cover letter. Identification of AI must include the name and manufacturer of the AI tool and how it was used in relation to the work being submitted.2 Authors are accountable for the integrity and accuracy of all material in their manuscript, including any content generated by AI.3


  1. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors. Available at: Accessed April 7, 2023.
  2. World Association of Medical Editors. Chatbots, ChatGPT, and Scholarly Manuscripts. Available at: Accessed April 7, 2023.
  3. Council on Publication Ethics. Authorship and AI Tools. Available at: Accessed April 7, 2023.

Use of Inclusive Language

Articles published in NeoReviews should use the most inclusive language possible. These recommendations are intended to guide authors but are not comprehensive. As the preferred terminology related to inclusive language evolves over time, these recommendations will be updated continuously. Please reach out to the editorial office for clarifications or suggestions.

Appropriate Use of Race and/or Ethnicity   

The rationale for including race and/or ethnicity in a manuscript should always be provided. Race and ethnicity should be acknowledged as social constructs rather than as genetic or biological categories. Use of “other” as a category for race and/or ethnicity should be clearly defined. It is inappropriate to assign missing race and/or ethnicity to an “other” category. Susceptibility related to race and/or ethnicity should be interpreted in the context of racism (eg, interpersonal, institutional, or internalized) and histories of exclusion, mistreatment, and exploitation, rather than as behaviors or presumed deficits. Please see the AMA Manual of Style Section 11.12.3: Race and Ethnicity for additional considerations. 

Inclusive Language 

  • Person-first language, which emphasizes the individual or group rather than the condition, disease, or situation, should generally be used, eg, “child(ren) with diabetes” and “child(ren) with obesity” rather than “diabetic child(ren)” and “obese child(ren).” Exceptions to first-person language include certain identity-first language for individuals and groups who prefer it, eg, “Deaf child(ren)” or “autistic child(ren).”
  • Race and ethnicity categories should be capitalized, including the White race. Race and ethnicity should be used as adjectives rather than nouns, eg, “Hispanic individuals” rather than “Hispanics.”  Race and ethnicity should be treated as separate categories rather than merging them, eg, “race and ethnicity” rather than “race/ethnicity.” 
  • Articles that report race and/or ethnicity should use the specific terms used in data collection or in the original study referenced. The terms should be accurate, understandable to study participants, and consistent with participants’ self-understanding. 
  • Refer to gender identity using terms such as “cisgender or transgender,” “man or woman,” “gender-nonbinary,” “genderqueer,” or “agender person,” etc., rather than “transgendered,” “transsexual,” or “transvestite.” Refer to the community as “transgender and non-binary” or “gender diverse,” rather than “gender non-conforming.”
  • Refer to sexual orientation using specific terms such as “heterosexual,” “lesbian,” “gay,” “bisexual,” “queer,” rather than terms such as “homosexual” or “non-heterosexual.” Refer to the “LGBTQ+ community” rather than the “gay community” unless referencing specific subgroups.  Restrict the use of “men who have sex with men” to refer to behaviors rather than to sexual orientation. 
  • Both pregnant women” and “pregnant people” are acceptable terms. Avoid substituting “pregnant women” with phrases such as “birthing people” or “people with uteruses.” Neutral terms, such as “pregnant patients” and “pregnant people” are inclusive alternatives. Authors of research studies should use the specific terms used in data collection or in the original study referenced. 

The following table provides suggestions for preferred terms, those to avoid, and rationale for why some terms should be avoided.

Preferred term(s) Terms to avoid Rationale for terms to avoid
Racial and ethnic minority


Person/people of color


Black and Brown people


Collective terms disregard individuals’ identities, may not include all underrepresented groups, or eliminate differences between groups, implying a hierarchy. If comparing racial and ethnic groups, indicate the specific groups. The use of ‘non-white’ centers white as the dominant race, which should be avoided.
Language other than English Limited English Proficient (LEP) LEP is deficit-oriented, reinforces English as the preferred language, and may be considered stigmatizing.

Groups that have been or person that has been:

  • economically or socially marginalized (define groups included)
  • marginalized (define groups included)
  • minoritized (define groups included
  • placed high risk for [outcome]

Groups or person (define who is included):

  • at higher risk of [outcome]
  • experiencing disadvantage
  • experiencing disproportionate impact

Under-resourced communities

Vulnerable person or groups

Marginalized person or groups

Minoritized person or groups

High-risk person or group

At-risk person on group

These terms are vague and may be considered stigmatizing. They imply that the condition is inherent to the group rather than actual causal factors.

Person experiencing homelessness or unstable housing

Person experiencing food insecurity

Person with food insecurity

People with lower incomes

People experiencing poverty

Homeless person/people

Transient population

Food insecure person


The poor or poor people

These terms imply that the condition is inherent to the group rather than actual causal factors.

Person with intellectual or developmental disability

Intellectual disabilities

Mental retard(ation) These terms are considered stigmatizing and outdated

Inclusive Images

Images published in NeoReviews should be as inclusive as possible. Authors should strive to include images that reflect all children, including the full spectrum of skin color.  Historically, the lack of variation in images has contributed to limited understanding of how disease can manifest.

Title Page

The “title page” should appear first in your manuscript document and, depending on the individual needs of a paper, may encompass more than one page.

Title pages for all submissions must include the following items (as shown in the templates for Review articlesIndex of Suspicion in the Nursery cases, Visual Diagnosis casesVideo Corner papers, and Perspectives articles). Review articles require additional items as listed below and as seen in the template.

  1. Title. 90-character limit, including spaces.
  2. Author listing Full names for all authors, including applicable degrees. List current complete academic affiliation and contact information for all authors. While you already may have entered this information in the journal’s content management system, you also must include this information on the manuscript title page, for editorial and any future production processes. (Names of any non-authors who provided significant technical or other assistance may be noted in an Acknowledgments section at the end of the article.)
  3. Corresponding Author. Contact information for the Corresponding Author (including: name, address, telephone number, and e-mail). There can be only one Corresponding Author; he or she should be the person who uploads the manuscript and will be expected to handle all inquiries about manuscript submission, forms, permissions, reviews, author proofs and production.
  4. Funding source. Research or project support, including internal funding, should be listed here; if the project was done with no specific support, please note that here. Technical and other assistance should be identified in Acknowledgments (if any). 
  5. Conflict of Interest and Financial Disclosure statements for all authorsNeoReviews does not prohibit authors who have a financial association with a profit-making company from writing articles. However, the journal’s policy requires that when potential conflicts of interest exist or arise, the author must disclose any affiliation, financial agreement, or other involvement with any company associated with a product or service that figures prominently in the submitted article.
  6. If applicable, Clinical Trial registry name and registration number. We adhere to International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines, which require that all trials must be registered with or any other World Health Organization (WHO) Primary Clinical Trials Registry.
  7. For Review article submissions only: also include these four items: Content SpecificationsPractice Gaps or Education GapsLearning Objectives, and Abbreviations (if any). These are not needed for any other manuscript type. Click here to see an example of a title page.

If a title page does not meet these requirements, the submission may be returned to the authors for completion.

Manuscript Elements

Tables:Tables should be used to highlight/present material as succinctly as possible.  Information in tables should not be repeated in the text. However, if material can be summarized in 100 words or less, tables are not necessary—instead the material should be incorporated into the text. 

Lists should be embedded in the manuscript. If a list consists of more than 3 items, it should be a bulleted list. 

Table placement should be noted in the manuscript; the tables themselves should be inserted in numerical order at the end of the manuscript.

Avoid abbreviations in tables; define any abbreviations that must be used in footnotes at the end of the table. Where possible, rows should be in a meaningful order (e.g., descending order of frequency).

NOTE: Tables should be constructed using a Microsoft Word programTables and figures from a 3rd party need to be clearly identified as such, and permissions must be supplied if needed. Do not provide tables in scan/image format.

Figures and Illustrations: Figures include graphs, charts, photographs, and illustrations. If a figure is reproduced from another source, authors are required to obtain permission from the copyright holder, and proof of permission must be uploaded at the time of manuscript submission. However, NeoReviews  will not accept images from Wikipedia, the Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, Wikimedia Commons, or any other affiliate of The Wikimedia Foundation, due to the open community contribution and open community editing practices of these entities. 

Number figures in the order in which they appear in the text. Each figure must include a legend, listed in numerical order at the end of your manuscript. Do not include figure legends in the figures themselves.

Technical requirements for figures: Figures must be uploaded separately with a file resolution of at least 300 DPI with a minimum of 600 pixels or 2 inches on the shortest side. 

  • Charts and illustrations work best as EPS, AI, or PDF; charts and line drawings should never be submitted in JPG format.
  • Photographs submitted as TIFF are best. JPG or PNG are acceptable for original photographs, but edited photographs should be saved as TIFF.
  • Do not embed images or illustrations in MS Word files. 
  • Strip radiographs or other patient images of all identifying information before upload.
  • Figure arrays should be clearly labeled, preassembled, and submitted to scale. Figure parts of an array (A, B, C, etc.) should be clearly marked in capital letters in the upper left-hand corner of each figure part.

Style for figures:  Readers should be able to understand figures without referring to the text. Avoid pie charts, 3-dimensional graphs, and excess ink in general. Make sure that the axes on graphs are labeled, including units of measurement, and that the font is large enough to read. 

Failure to submit figures as separate files or follow other technical requirements will result in the manuscript being unsubmitted and returned to the author for correction. No editing will be done by the editorial office; all changes are the responsibility of the authors.

Audio Files:  When appropriate, authors may include audio files to add educational value to their reviews (for example: heart murmurs, distinctive infant cries, etc.). Indicate in the manuscript where the audio file should be inserted (Audio 1, Audio 2, etc.). 

Video FilesNeoReviews encourages submission of relevant videos to accompany articles.

As with Figures, authors should indicate where the video should appear in the manuscript (Video 1, Video 2, etc.), so that links can be placed into the article for use when it is accessed electronically. 

All videos must adhere to the same general permission rules that apply to figures (i.e., parental consent / model release when a patient is identifiable). Video files should be named clearly to correspond with the figure they represent (i.e.,, video2.mp4, etc.). 

No editing will be done at the editorial office—all changes are the responsibility of the author.

References: Reference all content appropriately. Direct quotes should be enclosed in quotations marks. See Plagiarism. References should be numbered sequentially as they are cited within the article, and then listed in that same order at the end of the article.

Reference style within a manuscript:

“. . .women have Graves disease and only 1% to 5% of their infants develop neonatal hyperthyroidism. (1) (2) Clinical manifestations of neonatal Graves disease include irritability, hyperactivity, flushing, poor weight gain, tachycardia, hyperthermia, diarrhea, frontal bossing, triangular facies, small anterior fontanelle and less commonly, heart failure, exophthalmos, cholestasis, thrombocytopenia, and hyperammonemia. (1) (2) (3) (4) A goiter is another sign . . .”

Reference style at the end of a manuscript (NOTE: No period at end of Reference):

  • 1.Srinivasan S, Misra M. Hyperthyroidism in children. Pediatrics in Review. American Academy of Pediatrics. 2015;36(6):239-48
  • 2.Khadora MM, Al Dubayee M. Neonatal Graves' disease with unusual metabolic association from presentation to resolution. BMJ case reports. 2014;2014.
  • 3.Regelmann MO, Sullivan CK, Rapaport R. Thyroid "vise" in an infant with neonatal Graves' disease. Pediatrics. 2013;132(4):e1048-51

For additional guidance, especially on reference format, see the most current AMA Manual of Style.  

Suggested Readings: Authors may add a section entitled “Suggested Readings,” containing more resources that, while not referenced in the article, may be valuable to the reader.  Suggested Readings should be listed alphabetically. 

Suggested Readings style (NOTE: No period at end of Suggested Reading):

Adams DJ, Clark DA. Common genetic and epigenetic syndromes. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2015;62(2):411-26

Shuman C, Beckwith BJ, Smith AC, et al. Beckwith Wiedemann Syndrome. Gene Reviews Accessed April 5, 2016

Weissman A, Mashiach S, Achiron R. Macroglossia: prenatal and ultrasonographic diagnosis and proposed management. Prenat Diag. 1995;15:66-69

Weksberg R, Shuman C, Beckwith JB Weksberg. Beckwith–Wiedemann syndrome. Eur J Human Genetics.  2010;18:8-14

For additional guidance, especially on format, see the most current AMA Manual of Style.


Figure: Should I Cite? flowchart accessed 3/25/16 at
Reprinted with permission from University Library Service, Cardiff University.

Quoting Other Work: Authors are required to rephrase substantially any facts or language taken from other sources. This includes rephrasing self-quotation, from sources the author already has published.

If it is important to quote another source verbatim, the material MUST be in quotation marks and the source acknowledged, including any publications owned by the AAP (e.g., The Red Book).  Even one sentence must be in quotation marks and acknowledged, or it should be rewritten.  See the “Should I Cite?” flowchart above.

Self-plagiarism: Articles recruited or accepted for publication by NeoReviews should not be submitted to another journal, either simultaneously or in the future.  If the author has published elsewhere on the same subject, the author must rewrite or acknowledge the original source, using quotations marks, of any material from sources in which the previously published work has appeared.

Manuscript Screening: Authors should be aware that all manuscripts automatically are screened for potential plagiarism using CrossRef, powered by iThenticate.  If potential plagiarism is detected, editors will contact the authors for clarification, and may also contact the authors’ institution. To avoid this, before submitting a manuscript, consider running it through CrossRef  to identify, then remedy, any similarity uncovered.

AAP Plagiarism Prevention Policy: The American Academy of Pediatrics and the editors and staff of NeoReviews believe that plagiarism undermines the journal’s credibility and diminishes the journal’s reputation for integrity. 

Plagiarism allegations or suspected plagiarism will be investigated thoroughly. AAP follows guidelines set forth by the international Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Plagiarized material found in submitted manuscripts prior to acceptance for publication will result in immediate rejection. Any author found to have plagiarized material for a published article – and this includes self-plagiarizing from sources that the author already has published – will be exposed, via editorial apology, in print and online and will be banned from future involvement in the journal, whether as an author, reviewer, or question writer.

Suggested Readings on Plagiarism: Committee on Publication Ethics;  University of Notre Dame Hesburgh Libraries, Scholarly Publishing: Plagiarism

Review articles

Review articles should foster the latest and best practices, as driven by medical evidence, clinical guidelines, and the current recommendations of government and professional organizations. 

Review articles on assigned topics are written at the invitation of the editor-in-chief. These topics are mapped to the ABP content specifications for neonatal-perinatal medicine. The journal strives to address all the content specs on a rolling basis over the course of any 5-year period as part of its mission to help prepare readers for certification exams and to maintain lifelong learning goals.

However, spontaneous submissions based on documentable needs will be considered. To suggest a review on a timely, trending medical topic outside the scope of the ABP content specifications, email the editor-in-chief at:

Review article components:

Review articles should contain the following elements, in the order listed.

Title Page: The title page should be the first page of the manuscript. See title page template for more details on title page requirements.

Abbreviation List:
Because clarity is vital, abbreviations should be kept to a minimum. If more than three abbreviations are used in an article, they should be listed alphabetically, with their definitions, on the title page of the manuscript.  Abbreviations/acronyms are acceptable for terms used 3 or more times in the manuscript.

Words to be abbreviated should be spelled out at first mention, then followed by the abbreviation in parentheses, for example: “American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).”  Once an abbreviation is identified, that abbreviation should be used instead of the full term/name. 

Word Count: 6,000, total (see section guidance below)

Education/Practice Gap:

  • Word count: 100-150 words each. List at least 1.
  • This should be the first element, before the article body.
  • Describe what providers should (but may not) know to improve their delivery of health care.
  • Or, explain what's new ─ and probably not known to most clinicians ─ about the topic.
  • Include epidemiological data when relevant.


  • Word Count: Variable.
  • Objectives should address the following statement: “After completing this article, readers should be able to ..."


  • Word count: 250 words or less.
  • Highlight any discrepancy between the current health situation / condition versus the optimal health situation / condition.
  • Use epidemiological information to reiterate gaps in education or practice.

Body of the Review:

  • Word count: 5,400 words or less.
  • Images count toward the total:
    • Full-page image = 700 words
    • Half-page image = 350 words
  • Additional components to consider for inclusion:
    • Epidemiology (including prevalence and etiology).
    • Pathogenesis (including, when appropriate, pathophysiology).
    • Clinical Aspects (symptoms, signs, laboratory tests, and diagnosis).
    • Management (including therapy).
    • Prognosis (including follow-up).

Evidence / Article Summary:

  • Word count: 200-400 words
  • Format: Bulleted list.
  • Summarize major points, supporting each with a statement of evidence, to remind readers of the importance of basing their practices on evidence.
    • Base statements on such evidence as meta-analyses, practice guidelines, or Cochrane collaborative analyses.
    • To determine Level of Evidence, see Evidence Quality diagram below. 
  • If information in the manuscript is repeated in the Evidence Summary, please use the same reference number used in the body of the manuscript
  • For example: “Based on strong research evidence (1) (2)" . . .  “Based on some research evidence as well as consensus (3) . . . “Based primarily on consensus due to lack of relevant clinical studies.” 
  • When an evidence summary does not seem appropriate, create a Summary listing the article’s major “take home” points. 
  • Consider casting the summary in terms of practice change recommendations.

Click here to view a sample published Review article.

Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Case Series

Note: For unsolicited submissions, please send the proposed topic to before submission. 

Word Count: 6,000, total (see section guidance below)

Title: 90 characters or less. The title should describe the main issue clearly.

Abstract: Not Needed.

Introduction (50-150 words): The introduction should include pertinent background information, if needed, and a "Meet the Expert" paragraph where the credentials of the author are given.

Case Presentation (100-400 words): The case presentation is a concise summary of a real experience that may highlight health inequities.

Perspective Taking and Reflection (300-500 words): The purpose of the Perspective Taking and Reflection is to answer the question: How would you feel if you were in the shoes of someone experiencing this, from both the patient and the physician side? This may be formatted as separate statements by each of the authors and the expert.

Case Objectives (50-150 words): In bullet points, list some of the things you will go over in the dilemma and discussion section. These may include potential barriers to change (both internalized and external) and things you hope readers will take away from the article.

Key Terms/Vocabulary: 

  • Structural racism: Macro-level conditions (eg, residential segregation and institutional policies) that limit opportunities, resources, power, and well-being of individuals and populations based on race/ethnicity and other statuses.
  • Personally-mediated racism: Prejudice and discrimination, where prejudice means differential assumptions about the abilities, motives, and intentions of others according to their race, and discrimination means differential actions toward others according to their race.
  • Stereotype: A standardized mental picture that is held in common about members of a group that represents an oversimplified opinion, attitude, or unexamined judgment, without regard to individual difference.
  • Implicit bias: An example of personally-mediated racism whereby learned stereotypes and prejudices that operate automatically, and unconsciously, when interacting with others. Also referred to as unconscious bias.
  • Health inequities: Differences in health status and mortality rates across population groups that are systemic, avoidable, unfair, and unjust. These differences are rooted in social and economic injustice, and are attributable to social, economic, and environmental conditions in which people live, work, and play.

Discussion (1000-1500 words)The discussion provides historical background or context of the health inequities or contemporary implications. This may include noted commentary by the expert author.

Conclusion and Moving Forward (300-800 words): The conclusion summarizes the case and potential implications, which may contain individual lessons learned, and should include suggested changes moving forward (behaviors, institution policy, etc).


  • Figures, photos, tables, or other graphics are encouraged to illustrate educational points for the reader. It is the author's responsibility to obtain copyright, as needed. Note, radiographs do not require permission if there are no identifiers.
  • Photos and figures are still required to be submitted in accordance with figure guidelines and should not be submitted as part of the Word document.

Suggested Reading:

  • Recommended supplemental material not referenced in text. These should appear in alphabetical order. Suggest reading section should still follow AMA format.

References: References should follow AMA format.

  • For questions, email Be sure to include the words "NeoReviews_EDI Case" in the subject line. Final submissions should be submitted via our submission portal and should follow standard NeoReviews title page and formatting guidelines.

Index of Suspicion in the Nursery cases

  • Word limit: 1,000 words
  • Article Components:
      • Title Page: Do not reveal the diagnosis in the case title. See title page template
      • Presentation: 
        • Describe the facts of the case, from initial presentation through diagnostic testing
        • Do NOT reveal the actual diagnosis
        • Use the present tense in case presentations, prefer "girl/boy" to "female/male," and do not use names, initials, birth dates or unit numbers to identify the patient
        • Include images / videos when possible
      • Discussion:
        • Usually includes such topics as:
          • Differential Diagnosis
          • Actual Diagnosis
          • The Condition
          • Treatment / Management
          • Patient Course
      • Lesson(s) for the Clinicians: Create a bullet-point list of 2 to 6 major take-home lessons that readers should remember from the case. If appropriate, support these with references.
      • References and/or Suggested Readings
      • Note: Poster or Conference Presentations: If any elements of your case are or were published as part of a poster or conference presentation, the organization sponsoring the conference may have assumed copyright for your content. 
      • Before submitting your case, verify whether copyright ownership is held by the conference's sponsoring organization. 
        • If the sponsoring organization DOES assume copyright, obtain permission from the organization to submit your content to NeoReviews.
        • If the organization DOES NOT assume copyright, obtain documentation to that effect from the organization and submit the note with your manuscript. 
        • In either case, add a note to this effect to the end of your manuscript using the following language as a template:
        • "Note: This case is based on a presentation by Drs. [Presentation Author Team names] at the [Full conference name, full contest name, conference city and state], Poster Session: ____, Presentation Date: _____, Poster Number: _____."
      • Upload your correspondence with the organization as a "Supplemental File NOT for Review" as part of your manuscript submission.
      • For questions about Index of Suspicion, please contact Be sure to include the words "NeoReviews_IOSITN” in the subject line. 

Click here to view a sample published Index of Suspicion in the Nursery case.

Visual Diagnosis Cases

  • Word limit: 1,000 words
  • Article Components:
      • Title Page: Do not reveal the diagnosis in the case title
      • Presentation:
        • Must include images and/or videos
        • Describe the facts of the case, from initial presentation through diagnostic testing
        • Do NOT reveal the actual diagnosis
        • Diagnosis
        • Differential Diagnosis
        • Actual Diagnosis: In general, this is the first point at which it is acceptable to reveal the diagnosis
      • Discussion
      • Patient Course
      • A brief description of the patient's course and current condition
      • Summary 
      • Create a short summary of major take-home lessons that readers should remember, based on the specific patient and case. For numerous take-home lessons, create a bullet-point list. If appropriate, support with citations from the Reference List
      • NOTE: If any elements of your case are or were published as a poster or conference presentation, please see Poster or Conference Presentations for additional instructions
      • For questions about the column, please email Be sure to include the words  "NeoReviews_VisDx" in the subject line

Click here to view a sample published Visual Diagnosis case.

Video Corner

In Video Corner, the journal strives to promote best practices and evidence-based procedural approaches. Consider submitting instructional videos. There are several ways to teach using video, and the editors are open to creative methods (including the use of text, voice-overs, simulations, and just-in-time training).  However, there are two components critical to teaching procedures: the cognitive and the technical.  This format has been established in medical education and accepted.

  • Word limit: 1,600
  • Title Page: Do not reveal the diagnosis in the case title. See title page template.
  • Video Components: The first step for submitting your video is to develop a written script. Be sure to identify the problem (topic) to be covered and the learning objectives you hope to accomplish. Your written script should be based on the following 10 steps:
  • Indications
  • Contraindications
  • Consent (all personnel consented)
  • Time out (Pause)
  • Equipment
  • Anatomy
  • Preparation
  • Performing the procedure
  • Complications
  • References and/or Suggested Readings

Important points:

  • Any video submitted should be reviewed by the HIPAA compliance officer at your hospital, university or institution, especially if live patients are shown.
  • The AAP Model Release form for all humans shown in your video must be completed and on file at AAP.
  • Avoid promoting trade names.
  • Try to blur out or hide patient identities and product brands.
  • Use peer-reviewed resources when available.
  • Suggested formats and file size: mp4, H.264, image size 9280 x 720.

Prior to submission, please inquire with the video files to Akshaya Vachharajani, MD, Associate Editor, Video Corner, Be sure to use the words “NeoReviews_Video Corner” in your subject line, along with the name of the topic or procedure demonstrated. If the file email is rejected due to size, please send an e-mail to, asking for additional guidance on submission. 

If you need additional guidance, please contact the AAP staff of NeoReviews at:

Click here to view a sample published Video Corner article.

Complex Fetal Care

  • Word limit: 5,000 words
  • Article Components:
    •  Title Page
      •  Title
      • Author names and affiliations (ideal if < 5)
      • Corresponding author
      • Funding source
      • Financial disclosures
      • Abbreviations
    • Case Presentation
      • Describe initial pregnancy course
      • Describe reason for referral to diagnostic testing at Fetal Care Center
      • Discuss testing results performed at Fetal Care Center (e.g., US, MRI); provide relevant imaging
    • Expert Opinion (from perspective of specialists, including surgeon, cardiologist, geneticist, neurologist, neonatologist, etc.; include any ethical issues)
      • Describe summary of findings (if relevant, include differential diagnosis)
      • Describe next steps recommended by providers as pertains to intrauterine management, delivery room management, and postnatal management
      • Describe any additional relevant discussions with family (include any ethical discussions)
      • Discuss anticipated prognosis
    • Outcome
      • Briefly describe rest of pregnancy; if relevant, include family's ultimate choice for intervention
      • Describe neonatal course (include postnatal radiographic imaging and images of patient**, if relevant)
    • Parental Perspective (optional) We are interested in providing a parental perspective to cases where it is relevant and feasible.
      • Content can be written within text or a supplemental video
      • Content can be paraphrased from parental discussion or can include parental quotes
      • Questions to gather parental perspective can include 1 or more of the following:
        • During the pregnancy, when did you learn about your baby's condition? What type of clinician first discussed the diagnosis with you?
        • Did you need to have other tests, imaging, or procedures before your baby was born?
        • Did you need to transfer your care to another hospital for additional testing before your baby was born?
        • Did you meet with a pediatric specialist before your baby was born to discuss your baby's condition? Was it helpful? In what way?
        • What decisions did you make for your baby before they were born?
        • How did the fetal diagnosis affect you and your family?
        • What would you suggest/recommend for future parents of infants with a similar diagnosis?
      • Parental consent is required (form available from or
    • Discussion
      • Discuss overview of diagnosis and other content specific to the case, with special attention to failure of intervention and unintended adverse events/outcomes and their statistical likelihood
      • Create a short summary of major take-home lessons that readers should remember, based on the specific patient and case. (For numerous take-home lessons, create a bullet-point list.)
    • References
      • References should allow AMA format
      *If this is an unsolicited submission, please check with Managing Editor of NeoReviews ( prior to writing a case to confirm that the topic has not been published previously
      **Note: if using an image of patient, need to have family complete AAP Model Release form (hospital approval form is also acceptable)


NeoReviews’ Perspectives series offers insights on the profession of neonatology by taking a closer look at subjects in the following topic areas: Educational Perspectives, Historic Perspectives, Perinatal Profiles, International Perspectives, Nursing Perspectives, and, coming soon, Research Perspectives and Quality Improvement Perspectives.

  • Word limit: 1,000-5,000 words
  • Article Components:

      • Title Page: 90-character title limit. See title page template.
      • Body of the article:
        • Be sure to clear the topic with the Perspectives Associate Editor (see below)
        • Bear in mind that the reader may have little familiarity with the person/topic/project you are writing about. Therefore, make sure your topic is clear and sharply focused.
      • References and/or Suggested Readings
      • Images & Figures: Please provide any visual elements that will help readers to better understand your article, particularly if it focuses on individuals. Note: Obtaining permission to use a previously published image, figure or table is the author’s responsibility.
  • For questions about the Perspective series, contact Mamta Fuloria, MD, Associate Editor, Perspectives, at Be sure to include the words "NeoReviews_Perspectives” in the subject line. 

Click here to view samples of published Perspectives articles: Historical Perspectives, Educational Perspectives, Perinatal Profiles, International Perspectives, Nursing Perspectives

If you need additional guidance, please contact the AAP staff of NeoReviews at:

Maternal-Fetal Case Studies

The purpose of Maternal-Fetal Case Studies is to describe a pregnancy complication to provide teaching pearls relevant to readers of NeoReviews. 

In this feature, authors provide a brief outline of a pre-existing maternal diagnosis pregnancy-related complication and subsequently, document the pregnancy and neonatal outcomes. Following that, authors discuss the fetal and neonatal implications of the maternal diagnosis or pregnancy-related complication.

Word Limit: Approximately 1400-1600 words

 Title: Title should ideally link neonatal implications for the pregnancy diagnosis or complication

 Case Presentation: The pregnant patient's presentation and initial aspect of the clinical case (approximately 2-3 paragraphs) including obstetrical history and prenatal course/management

 Case Progression: Completion of the patient antenatal course leading to delivery

 Delivery: Brief description of delivery including gestational age and mode of delivery (1 paragraph)

 Maternal Outcome: Brief description of postpartum course and delivery

 Neonatal Outcome: Brief description of neonatal care including any neonatal resuscitation, Apgar score and weight (grams, %) and brief postnatal course)

 Discussion: (3-4 paragraphs) Provide evidence-based guidelines for management of the complication of pregnancy or the pregnancy-related complications or diagnoses.

 Figures / Photos / Tables / Graphics:

    • Figures, photos, tables or other graphics are encourage to illustrate educational points for the readers. Illustrations may include photos of the delivery, radiographs, and tables to outline summarized information. It is the author's responsibility to obtain copyright, as needed. Note, radiographs do not require permission if there are no identifiers.
    • A fetal heart rate tracing can be included if it aptly illustrates key points in the case.
    • As a general rule, approximately 3-4 graphics (including photos, tables, figures) are encouraged
    • Photos and figures are still required to be submitted in accordance with figure guidelines and should not be submitted as part of the main document


    • Use of references from national guidelines from American College ObGyn or Society Maternal-Fetal Medicine of landmark articles are encouraged
    • The total number of references does not need to be extensive; an average of 5 references for the discussion section is appropriate
    • Formatting example:
      Milliken S, Allen RM, Lamont RF. The role of antimicrobial treatment during pregnancy on the neonatal gut microbiome and the development of atopy, asthma, allergy and obesity in childhood. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2019;18(3):173-18.

      Associate Editor: Brett C. Young MD

      If you need additional guidance, please contact the AAP staff of NeoReviews at:

    Topics may include the effects on the fetus/newborn secondary to:

    • Maternal medical conditions including:
      • Cardiac disease including chronic hypertension
      • Connective tissue disorders
      • Diabetes, pre-existing or gestational
      • Exposure to ionizing radiation
      • Gastrointestinal/digestive disorders
      • Hematologic disorders
      • Immunologic disease
      • Infectious diseases including HIV, viral bacterial, protozoal, parasite
      • Maternal substance use including illicit drugs, cannabis, tobacco, alcohol
      • Metabolic disorders including PKU
      • Neurologic disease
      • Psychiatric disorders
      • Pulmonary disease
      • Renal disease, acute or chronic
      • Thromboembolic disease
      • Surgery during pregnancy and effects of anesthesia
    • Multiple gestation
    • Preeclampsia and other hypertensive disorders of pregnancy
    • Complications of labor that affect the fetus/neonate
      • Cord prolapse
      • Effects of analgesics administered intrapartum
      • Intrapartum fever, intraamniotic infection
      • Maternal hypotension
      • Meconium-stained amniotic fluid
      • Operative assisted vaginal delivery
      • Placental abruption, vasa previa, maternal-fetal hemorrhage
      • PPROM / PROM
      • Shoulder dystocia
      • Uterine rupture

    Outcomes of NICU Graduates

    Neonatologists are responsible for speaking with families about anticipated long-term outcomes. Some fellows/neonatologists have the opportunity to learn firsthand about outcomes of NICU patients in outpatient clinics. However, this is not available to all. To help readers stay current with outcomes of NICU graduates, we have added a new feature to NeoReviews that focuses on the follow-up care and long-term outcomes of these patients.

    In this feature, authors provide a brief overview of the patient's inpatient clinical course with a more detailed description of the specific diagnosis. Following, authors review the patient's follow-up (either at Neurology Clinic, Infant Follow-up Program, BPD Clinic, ECMO Follow-up Program, Genetics Clinic, Cardiology Clinic, Endocrinology Clinic, Gastroenterology Clinic, or Pediatrician office, etc). The follow-up period that is discussed depends on the specific patient and the diagnosis. At the end of the submission, authors discuss the known outcomes related to that patient's diagnosis.

    Note: in the guidelines below, we provide an example (in blue font) of the content based on a case of a former 24 week gestational age infant with severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) who was discharged home with a tracheotomy tube.

    • Word limit: 5,000 words
    • Article Components: (note: most of the discussion should be focused on the outpatient care and follow-up with an abbreviated review of the NICU course)
      • Title Page:
        • Title: Title should be based on infant's diagnosis (e.g. Tracheotomy in a Preterm Infant with BPD)
        • Author names and affiliations (limit 5)
        • Corresponding author contact information (Identify by name, email address, and phone number)
        • Institutional affiliation of each author
        • Funding source
        • Financial disclosures
        • Abbreviations
      • Case Presentation (note: please abbreviate the NICU course as much as possible because the focus of this feature is on outpatient care)

        Although the example we use below is based on 1 patient, another option is to present a few abbreviated cases with different outcomes (e.g. ELBW#1 infant home with GT vs ELBW#2 home with NG feedings vs ELBW #3 infant transferred to chronic care facility with NG feedings)
        • Provide a 1-2 sentence overview of the case (i.e. 3-year old male born at 24 weeks' gestation with severe BPD requiring tracheotomy tube)
        • Describe initial pregnancy course, if relevant (discuss prenatal course & reason for preterm birth)
        • Briefly describe delivery room course in 1-2 sentences
        • Provide a short overview of the infant's NICU course, with a particular focus on the diagnosis that is being followed (this can be designated by stems) (discuss details of infant's respiratory course, including specific ventilator support and length of time as well as steroid course; also provide short summary of other systems during NICU stay; summarize ENT consult; review reason for tracheotomy tube placement and specifics of that tube)
        • Provide all relevant laboratory tests and radiographic imaging; include images of patient*, if relevant (example: include a sampling of chest radiographs during NICU stay that show progression of disease as well as most recent chest radiograph prior to discharge; include recent arterial blood gas)
        • If diagnosis is unknown, include differential diagnosis
        • Summarize discussion that occurred with family about expectations of this infant's diagnosis; when relevant and option given to family about approach, please include family's perspective (example: family met with ORL and Pulmonology and summarize their discussions; discuss options for d/c home vs chronic care facility)
        • Discuss specifics of discharge, anticipatory guidance, and plan for follow-up (example: infant discharged to a chronic care facility with f/u by pulmonologist with primary care team involvement)
      • Follow-up Course:
        • Describe infant's follow-up that occurred in pediatric practice, specialty clinic, and/or chronic care facility (example: Patient now 3 years of age; summarize infant's course. Did he have any severe respiratory illnesses? Any areas of severe skin breakdown? Any accidental decannulations? What type of care did he need? What type of speaking valves were used and how frequently? Does he still have the trach-if not, what was the decannulation approach? Current speech? When was he discharged to home-if so, what support was provided to the family?)
        • Provide all relevant laboratory tests and radiographic imaging; include relevant images of patient* (provide CXR at time of discharge and most recent film); reference any images in text
      • Parent Perspective (optional) We are interested in providing a parental perspective to cases where it is relevant and feasible
        • Content can be written within text or a supplemental video
        • Content can be paraphrased from parental discussion or can include parental quotes
        • Questions to gather parental perspective can include 1 or more of the following:
          • Did you find about your child's condition before or after they were born? Were you anticipating a stay in the NICU?
          • Were there any complications during your baby's NICU stay? What were they? How did those affect you?
          • What was the most difficult aspect about being a parent in the NICU?
          • What would have helped you in the NICU?
          • How is your life with your child now? Tell us about a typical day.
          • What challenges do you face right now?
          • What would you suggest/recommend for future parent of infants with a similar diagnosis (prenatal, postnatal or after NICU discharge)?
          • What are your hopes for your child?
        • Parental consent is required (form available from or
      • Expert Discussion
        • Provide a summary of patient's diagnosis and other content specific to the case (review indications for tracheotomy tube placement in former preterm infants with BPD, discuss management and potential complications of tracheotomy tube, review speaking valves, typical decannulation approach, infant's anticipated development, etc)
        • Tables and Figures are recommended (reference these within text)
        • Discuss patient's clinical course that was typical and atypical for this diagnosis (atypical-did this infant have more infections than had been anticipated? more accidental decannulations?)
        • Review additional follow-up that is needed and expected outcome through to adulthood (if relevant)
        • Create a short summary of major take-home lessons that readers should remember, based on the specific patient and case. (For numerous take-home lessons, create a bullet-point list.)
      • References
        • Provide citation within text and list references in order they appear in text
        • Example:
        1. Milliken S, Allen RM, Lamont RF. The role of antimicrobial treatment during pregnancy on the neonatal gut microbiome and the development of atopy, asthma, allergy and obesity in childhood. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2019;18(3):173-185
      • General Style Information
        • Submisison: submit as Word document to our manuscript submission site (; article type is "Other"
        • Tables: Should appear within the document
        • Figures: Each must be submitted in a separate file (preferably as jpg, tiff, and png files)
        • Plagiarism: Many authors are asked to write articles for more than one journal. We understand that it may be difficult to avoid using similar phrases, but if there is substantial repetition of a previous article, it should be indicated by reference or acknowledgment of the earlier article, in order to avoid self-plagiarism. If the wording is verbatim, the content should be placed in quotation marks, followed by a reference to the previously published article. The American Academy of Pediatrics subscribes to an online plagiarism detection system in which each article will be reviewed.

    *Note: if use image of patient with identifiable features, need to have family complete AAP Model Release form or form from your own hospital.

    Manuscript Submission

    Submit manuscripts to our content management system here.

    Manuscript Review, Revision

    Initial Review: Each article proceeds through initial editorial checks before being cleared for review. Articles may be returned to the author if they do not meet the specifications listed above.

    Editors’ Review Considerations:  Once submission proceeds through the initial review noted above, each article is sent out for peer review. The great majority of articles require some revision.  All articles are subject to this standard review process, and there is no guarantee of future publication.

    Deadlines: Authors receive several weeks to revise their manuscripts as recommended and are required to adhere to the stated deadline. If there will be an egregious reason for missing the deadline, contact as soon as possible to negotiate an alternate deadline. 

    Author Proofs

    After acceptance, articles are scheduled for publication based on current journal content needs. Approximately 60 days before publication, authors receive a link to view an Author Proof, showing the article as it will appear when published.

    At this stage, it is extremely important for authors to go over the entire manuscript proof line by line, including tables and figures, to make sure the article is accurate.

    A Final Word

    NeoReviews is most grateful for all authors’ contributions to neonatal-perinatal education and to the health of children everywhere.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal