text:
Gastroenterology is the most prominent journal in the field of gastrointestinal disease. As the official journal of the AGA Institute, Gastroenterology delivers up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical gastroenterology. Regular features include articles by leading authorities and reports on the latest treatments for diseases. Original research is organized by clinical and basic-translational content, as well as by alimentary tract, liver, pancreas, and biliary content.
Gastroenterology also bridges the gap between basic and clinical science by publishing comprehensive reviews and perspectives on important topics such as pancreatitis and liver disease. Additional features include Covering the Cover; Mentoring, Training, and Education Corner; Press Highlights; Imaging and Advanced Technology; Clinical Challenges and Images in GI; Selected Summaries; Print and Digital Media Reviews; Continuing Medical Education Activities; Editorials; and Correspondence. Multimedia offerings include images, video abstracts, and podcasts. Gastroenterology also provides updates and commentary via Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and its research blog
The AGA Journals Blog. Gastroenterology is recommended for initial purchase in the Brandon-Hill study, Selected List of Books and Journals for the Small Medical Library.
Gastroenterology is ranked 1st of 80 journals in the Gastroenterology and Hepatology category on the 2017 Journal Citation Reports®, published by Clarivate Analytics, and has an Impact Factor of 19.809. Its immediacy index, which is a measure of how topical and urgent work published Gastroenterology is 4.450, one of the highest in the field. On average, authors receive decisions on their manuscripts within three weeks. Gastroenterology is circulated to 19,000 individuals and institutions worldwide.
Please address all inquiries to:
Gastroenterology Editorial Office
American Gastroenterological Association
4930 Del Ray Avenue
Bethesda, MD 20814-3015
Phone: (301) 941-2615
Fax: (301) 654-1140
Gastroenterology publishes clinical and basic studies of all aspects of the digestive system, including the liver and pancreas, as well as nutrition. The types of articles Gastroenterology publishes include original papers, review articles, and special category manuscripts. Manuscripts must be prepared in accordance with the "Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals" developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (http://www.icmje.org). Gastroenterologyis a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (http://www.publicationethics.org).
Gastroenterology strongly encourages the submission of papers on a breadth of clinical topics in gastroenterology, hepatology, endoscopy, randomized controlled trials (phases II-IV but typically not phase I), high-quality observational studies, and novel case series.Gastroenterology is interested in all aspects of clinical trials including treatment, prevention, diagnosis, screening, and quality of life. High-quality meta-analyses are also welcome. Publication priority will be determined by factors such as novelty, impact upon clinical practice, strength of the experimental design, and mechanistic insight.
Gastroenterology is interested in all aspects of high impact translational and basic studies that would be of interest to our broad readership. These aspects include defining a critical physiologic or disease process/pathway, or mechanism for disease progression or protection; identifying a genetic cause, modifier, or association with disease; describing a novel experimental disease model; characterizing a novel GI-related mechanism of drug action; preclinical studies that describe a potential novel therapy, diagnostic, or prognostic marker or tool that is related a disease.Gastroenterology has a total circulation of approximately 17,000-about 12,000 in the United States and 5,000 in other countries. 80% of subscribers are AGA members. In the United States, about 75% of subscribers are physicians, and about 25% of subscriptions go to residents, medical schools, and libraries. About 68% of the papers published originate overseas.
Gastroenterology is abstracted and indexed in Biological Abstracts, CABS, Chemical Abstracts, Current Contents, Excerpta Medica, Index Medicus, Nutrition Abstracts, and Science Citation Index.Gastroenterology is the highest-ranking journal for original GI, hepatology and nutrition research in the 2018 Journal Citation Reports, published by Clarivate Analytics, and has an Impact Factor of 19.809. Its immediacy index, which is a measure of how topical and urgent work published in Gastroenterology is, is 4.003, one of the highest in the field. On average, authors receive decisions on their manuscripts within three weeks.
Information about Article Types
Submission Checklist
Preprint Server Policy
Graphical Abstracts
Manuscript Processing and Review
Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest Policy
Plagiarism, Duplicate Submission/Publication Policy
Image Manipulation Policy
Open Access Policies
Continuing Medical Education/Maintenance of Certification
Author Fees
Clinical Trials
Reporting Meta-Analyses of Genetic Studies
Distribution of Material Described in Published Papers
All manuscripts must be submitted via http://www.editorialmanager.com/gastro
Original Articles are full-length reports of original research. Articles cover topics relevant to clinical, basic, and translational studies in these areas of interest. They may discuss nutrition, immunology, cell biology, molecular biology, morphology, physiology, pathophysiology, epidemiology, imaging, or therapy. Both adult and pediatric problems are included. To be published, the work presented in the manuscript must be original; on occasion, confirmatory studies of timely and important observations will also be acceptable. Submissions must adhere to the following guidelines:
- Manuscript: only Microsoft Word documents will be accepted.
- Title page: title; authors' names; authors' institutions; corresponding author contact information; conflict of interest statement (for all authors); author contributions to manuscript.
- Word count:7,000 words (inclusive of main text; references; table/figure legends).
- Approximately 1,000 words of the total count should appear in the "Materials and Methods" section of the manuscript.
- Materials and Methods should be placed immediately after the Introduction.
- Abstract: 260 words, structured as follows: background and aims; methods; results; conclusion; 4-5 keywords.
- Tables/Figures: seven tables (no panels) and/or figures total.
- Please submit figures as separate attachments in JPEG, TIFF, EPS, or PDF formats (300 PPI resolution).
- The editor reserves the right to publish excessively long tables as online-only material.
- References: please list names of authors who share first authorship in bold text. In addition, include the phrase "Author names in bold designate shared co-first authorship" at the end of the references section.
- What You Need to Know: This note will appear as a box on the second page of the published version of each article, containing brief summarizations about your study under the following 4 headings: BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT, NEW FINDINGS, LIMITATIONS, and IMPACT. Please provide 25-30 words (about one sentence) under each of these 4 headings that very briefly and simply summarize your study in relation to each category.
- Short summary: please prepare a 1 or 2 sentence "lay summary" of each original research article's findings. It should be 25-30 words (about one sentence) and very briefly summarize the article's findings in simple lay terms. You will have an opportunity to enter this summary on the Editorial Manager website as you are submitting your revision. It will appear on the Gastroenterology table of contents if your paper is ultimately accepted.
- Randomized Controlled Trials: Provide CONSORT checklist and patient flowchart as supplemental attachments.
- Clinical Trials:
- Provide the clinical trial registry website and trial number at the end of the "conclusions" section of the abstract.
- Include a statement in the "methods" section of the manuscript affirming that "all authors had access to the study data and reviewed and approved the final manuscript.
- Include the clinical trial protocol in English as a supplemental attachment.
Brief Communications
Brief Communications are concise, meritorious scientific reports of novel original research. Topics of reports may include, but are not limited to, identification of the genetic basis of a disease, a description of a unique case series, novel techniques, new animal models of human disease, and mechanistic insights. Submissions to Brief Communications must adhere to the following guidelines:
- Manuscript: only Microsoft Word documents will be accepted.
- Title page: title; authors' names; authors' institutions; corresponding author contact information; conflict of interest statement (for all authors); author contributions to manuscript.
- Maximum of 6 authors
- Word count: Article text must not exceed 1000 words (not including table, figure, or references).
- Brief Communications must include these elements in this order: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion, and all article titles should be declarative.
- If needed, a brief communication may include up to an additional 1000 words of supplemental text for describing methods. The text cannot be used to provide additional results or discussion.
- Abstract: No abstract.
- Tables/Figures: May include up to 1 table or figure.
- Please submit figures as separate attachments in JPEG, TIFF, EPS, or PDF formats (300 PPI resolution).
- If needed, a brief communication may include 1-2 additional figures or tables (maximum of two total figures + tables) as supplementary material, for describing results.
- References: Limited to 8
- Format: Jones RS, et al. Gastroenterology 2011; 2: 373 -380 (only the first author is listed, unless manuscripts with joint first authors are cited, and article title is not included).
- These reports are not the same as a Letter to the Editor and must not duplicate other material published or submitted for publication.
- In the references, please list names of authors who share first authorship in bold text. In addition, include the phrase "Author names in bold designate shared co-first authorship" at the end of the references section
This article type presents a striking image that is meant to test and inform readers. The article is presented as an unknown with the diagnosis hinging on the correct interpretation and integration of the image and clinical data. The answer is presented on a separate page of the journal. The section is intended to illustrate and teach important medical points. Submissions must adhere to the following guidelines:
- Manuscript: only Microsoft Word documents will be accepted.
- Title Page: title (cannot reveal diagnosis); authors' names (limit of three); authors' institutions; corresponding author contact information; conflict of interest statement (for all authors); 3-4 keywords
- Word Count: Question and Answer format (one page each).
- Keywords: Include 3-4 keywords on the title page.
- Abstract: No abstract.
- Tables/Figures: no limit.
- Images can be either clinical, pathologic (gross or microscopic), endoscopic, or radiographic. They must be of high quality (300 PPI resolution) and illustrate the diagnosis well.
- Please submit figures as separate attachments in JPEG, TIFF, EPS, or PDF formats.
- Do not place figure labels directly on the images.
- All necessary information pertaining to figures must be included in the text (i.e., no figure legends).
- References: limited to three
Letters to the Editor allow the opportunity to offer novel perspectives and opinions on papers published in Gastroenterology. Letters must be submitted for consideration by the end of the month in which the corresponding article was published (e.g., a response to an article in the July issue should be submitted by the end of July). At the end of each submission period, all letters received that month will be assessed by the board of editors. Letters deemed of interest to the journal are collated and sent to the authors of the original article for a response; the authors are given two weeks to reply. A decision will then be made whether to publish the letter with or without its reply. No more than three letters are published for any given manuscript, and they are evaluated in sequence of submission. Submissions must adhere to the following guidelines:
- Manuscript: only Microsoft Word documents will be accepted.
- Title Page: title; authors' names (limit of three); authors' institutions; corresponding author contact information; conflict of interest statement (for all authors).
- Word Count: 750 (inclusive of main text and table/figure legends).
- Abstract: not required.
- Tables/Figures: Not permitted.
- References: Limited to 8.
- Format: Jones RS, et al. Gastroenterology 2011; 2: 373 -380 (only the first author is listed, unless manuscripts with joint first authors are cited, and article title is not included).
This article type contains two parts: (1) video and narration; (2) published text with relevant figures/tables. Submissions must adhere to the following guidelines:
- Manuscript: only Microsoft Word documents will be accepted.
- Title page: title; authors' names; authors' institutions; corresponding author contact information; conflict of interest statement (for all authors); author contributions to manuscript.
- Word Count: 1,000 (inclusive of main text, references, and table/figure legends) and must include the following sections:
- Introduction (one paragraph without a header).
- Description of technology (one paragraph).
- Video description (up to two paragraphs).
- Take home message (implications/significance of video demonstration [one to 8 sentences]).
- Abstract: not required.
- References: Limited to 8.
- Format: Jones RS, et al. Gastroenterology 2011; 2: 373 -380 (only the first author is listed, unless manuscripts with joint first authors are cited, and article title is not included).
- Tables/Figures:
- A combination of up to two figures and/or tables in total can be included with the submission. The figures must be submitted as separate attachments and tables cannot include panels.
- Please submit figures as separate attachments in JPEG, TIFF, EPS, or PDF formats. Figures must have a resolution of 300 PPI or greater.
- Figures must be accompanied by concise figure legends.
- Video Guidelines
- All videos must be of the highest quality possible. Any editing of the video is the responsibility of the author(s).
- No editing of the original data in individual frames or alteration of the original speed of the video can be made unless clearly stated.
- Transitions should be selected in a consistent and simple pattern. Dramatic transitions are discouraged as they tend to distract the viewers from the main contents of the video.
- Allow adequate pauses for the viewers to properly take in the information presented. A typical pause should be 4 -5 seconds long.
- Acceptable video file formats are: MPEG (.mpg), Quicktime (.mov), or Microsoft (.avi).
- Maximum video length is 5 minutes each. Maximum file size/video is 160 MB.
- No more than 2 videos per submission
- Concise legends must accompany each video in the text file.
- Narration can be included with the video. If you elect to include narration, be sure that all audio is at an appropriate level to be understood using computer speakers at mid-level volume.
- Patients should not be identifiable, or their pictures must be accompanied by written permission to use the video.
- Histology and/or radiology can be included for teaching purposes.
- There are no submission fees or page charges.
Copyright: The AGA Institute holds the copyright to all accepted videos and their accompanying text. To reuse the video or text in any form, permission must first be obtained from Gastroenterology's publisher, Elsevier.Protected Health Information (PHI) must be removed from manuscripts, figures, and videos prior to submission. Any Gastroenterology in Motion submission found to contain PHI will be summarily rejected without opportunity for resubmission.
Practical Teaching Cases
Practical Teaching Cases showcase common clinical scenarios that are part of the knowledge base of GI. The section serves the growing need for standardized, high-quality educational activities that are easily accessible and useful to Gastroenterology's readership. Information regarding the specific patient (in terms of follow-up and response to therapy) must be given as appropriate. Submissions must adhere to the following guidelines:
- Manuscript: only Microsoft Word documents will be accepted.
- Title Page: title (cannot reveal diagnosis); authors' names (limit of three); authors' institutions; corresponding author contact information; conflict of interest statement (for all authors); 3-4 keywords
- Word Count: one-page case description; a structured multiple choice question (4 possible answers, all plausible); one page discussion of correct answer.
- Keywords: Include 3-4 keywords on the title page.
- Abstract: No abstract.
- Tables/Figures: no limit.
- Images can be either clinical, pathologic (gross or microscopic), endoscopic, or radiographic. They must be of high quality (300 PPI resolution) and illustrate the diagnosis well.
- In addition to images, some cases may lend themselves to the presentation of serial lab data in a figure or table format using standard Gastroenterology formatting.
- Please submit figures as separate attachments in JPEG, TIFF, EPS, or PDF formats.
- Do not place figure labels directly on the images.
- All necessary information pertaining to figures must be included in the text (i.e., no figure legends).
- References: limited to three
This section includes brief reports of symposia, conferences, and meetings in digestive disease research. They include critical commentary, connections among the presentations, and consensus, if any, that emerged from the meeting. The editors encourage authors of potential meeting summaries to propose submissions for this section in advance of scheduled meetings. Summaries must be submitted within two months after a meeting.
- Title Page: title; authors' names (limit of three); authors' institutions; corresponding author contact information; conflict of interest statement (for all authors).
- Word Count: 2,400 (inclusive of main text and table/figure legends).
- Tables/Figures: Up to two
- References: Up to 25
Mentoring, Education, and Training Corner
This section focuses on the education, development, and support of young learners and proteges in the field of digestive disease. Expert guest authors will provide reviews on a wide array of topics including career opportunities, steps for success, gender and ethnic diversity, training updates, and balancing home and work life. The material presented in this section will be organized by overarching themes. Submissions are by invitation only, but email inquiries (email@example.com) by prospective authors will be considered.
Editorials express opinions on current topics of interest or provide comments on papers published elsewhere in the same issue. Submissions are by invitation only.
Reviews in Basic and Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Brief and Full Reviews are solicited by the board of editors and no unsolicited reviews will be considered.
This section provides a general preview of two clinical articles and two basic articles that appear in each issue and are of particular importance to our readership. As it is written by the section editors, no unsolicited submissions will be considered.
Selected Summaries
Selected Summaries are concise, expert overviews of articles recently published in other journals, books, and digital media that are of potential interest to our readership. Summaries are primarily written by a regular staff of contributors selected by the Section Editors.
This section provides authoritative, balanced, and comprehensive narrative reviews and rapid commentaries derived from the following sources: a) proposed guidelines which do not meet criteria for guideline grading; b) topics generated by the Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC), Gastroenterology editors, and other AGA committees and members; c) summaries of important symposia (e.g., Freston Conference). As topics and authors are selected by CPUC, the AGA Institute Governing Board, and the Clinical Guidelines Committee, submissions are by invitation only.
Potential subjects for these articles will derive from several sources in coordination with the AGA Institute Clinical Guidelines Committee. First, important topics that are initially proposed for an AGA guideline but do not meet rigid criteria for guideline grading will be sent to CPUC for review and consideration. Second, ideas for topics will be generated by CPUC and Gastroenterology editors as well as other AGA committees and members. Third, summaries of important symposia (e.g., Freston Conference) will be included. Topics can be presented in the form of a comprehensive, narrative review or-for particularly timely issues in gastroenterology, hepatology, and health care in general-as a rapid commentary.
Commentaries express perspectives or provide information on current topics of interest in the field of GI and hepatology. They may be solicited or unsolicited.
- Title Page: title; authors' names (limit of three); authors' institutions; corresponding author contact information; conflict of interest statement (for all authors).
- Abstract: no abstract
- Word Count: 2,400 (inclusive of main text and table/figure legends).
- Tables/Figures: Up to two
- References: Up to 25
** All manuscripts must be submitted via http://www.editorialmanager.com/gastro**
Cover Letter
Gastroenterology strongly encourages authors to provide a concise introductory statement describing their manuscript and any relevant contextual information. Please note that the Cover Letter should not serve as the Title Page of your manuscript document. Additionally, authors should suggest two to five reviewers (including email addresses and phone number) as well as the associate editor they believe is best qualified to review the paper. Authors may also list non-preferred associate editors or reviewers, but the ultimate decision is at the sole discretion of the editor-in-chief and associate editor, respectively. Please be sure to state the reasons for any potential deviations from standard format and clarify any potential conflicts related to the exclusive nature of the publication. The Cover Letter should also categorize the manuscript into one of the following categories:
- Clinical:
- Alimentary Tract; Liver; Pancreas; or Biliary
- Basic and Translational
- Alimentary Tract; Liver; Pancreas; or Biliary
A Title Page must be included as the first page of the manuscript document. It should also contain the following sections in the order given below:
- Title: include animal species; use no abbreviations; limited to 120 characters (with spaces).
- Short Title: limited to 45 characters (with spaces).
- Author(s): list full names of all authors; their positions and institutions; location of department and institution where the work was performed.
- Grant support: list grant support and other assistance.
- Abbreviations: list abbreviations (in alphabetical order) not mentioned in the Style Guide following the Instructions to Authors. (Note: In general, the use of abbreviations is discouraged).
- Correspondence: provide contact information (i.e., name, physical address, email address, telephone, and fax numbers) of the corresponding author.
- Disclosures: list any potential conflicts (financial, professional, or personal) relevant to the manuscript. If an author has nothing to disclose, this must be stated.
- Transcript Profiling: list accession number of repository for expression microarray data.
- Writing Assistance: list names and funding source for individuals who provided writing assistance.
- Author Contributions: Upon submission of a manuscript via Editorial Manager, the corresponding author of the manuscript must select a role(s) for each author from a pre-populated list of authorship roles from the CRediT Taxonomy (https://www.casrai.org/credit.html), which is a widely accepted and used high-level taxonomy that represent the roles typically played by contributors to scientific scholarly output. Detailed instructions can be found at editorialmanager.com/gastro when submitting a manuscript.
Corresponding Author Duties
When submitting a manuscript, the corresponding author should be prepared to complete the following steps:
- Have an account on editorialmanager.com/gastro with a current email address.
- Upload your manuscript files and provide information on the region of origin, the category of your manuscript, keywords, and classifications relevant to your manuscript?s focus area.
- You may be prompted to propose suggested reviewers, and/or note opposed reviewers for consideration by the Board of Editors. Please note the Board of Editors is not obligated to follow your suggestions.
- You will answer several questions regarding the composition of your manuscript, and you will attest to statements certifying the validity of the data, funding sources, and intellectual content. You will also assign AGA copyright for your manuscript pursuant to acceptance. Any co-authors will confirm their agreement with these statements when they verify their co-authorship.
- Co-author names, academic degrees, and email addresses are required and must be added to the Editorial Manager system separate from inclusion within the Word document file of your manuscript. ORCID numbers may also be included for you and/or your co-authors, if applicable.
- The corresponding author will need to respond promptly to all correspondence related to your submission, including requests from the editorial office regarding changes to comply with article type guidelines (if applicable). If the manuscript is accepted, the corresponding author will receive the proof from our publisher and must supply all edits within 48 hours.
An Abstract should be included after the Title Page. It should not exceed 260 words or include any footnotes or references. Abbreviations should be avoided and spelled out at first mention. If your article type requires a structured abstract (see above), it should be organized as follows:
- Background & Aims: describe the importance of the study and the precise research objective(s) or study question(s).
- Methods: include information on the following aspects of study design when applicable. The methods section may employ subheadings at the discretion of the author.
- Design: describe the basic study design (e.g., randomized controlled trial, cross sectional study, cohort study, case series, survey, etc.). Source of all non-standard reagents need to be explicitly stated.
- Setting: specify whether the study was conducted in a primary or tertiary care setting, in an ambulatory care clinic or hospital, in the general community, etc.
- Participants: indicate the number of study subjects and how they were selected, recruited, and assigned to the intervention.
- Intervention: report the method of administration and duration of the intervention.
- Results: provide the main outcomes of the study including confidence intervals or P-values. Report the absolute values and risk differences so that readers can determine the absolute, as well as the relative, impact of the results.
- Conclusions: state only conclusions that are directly supported by the evidence and the implications of the findings.
- Keywords: include 3-4 keywords associated with your manuscript, separated by semicolons (e.g., active vitamin D; parathyroid hormone-related peptide; hypercalcemia; bone resorption). The keywords should be different than the words in the title of your manuscript. Should your manuscript be accepted, the keywords will appear with the published manuscript, making it easier to find in literature search engines such as PubMed.
Body of Paper
In addition to the main content of your manuscript, be sure to include the following (if applicable):
- Describe ethical guidelines followed (for human or animal studies).
- Cite approval of institutional human research review committee or animal welfare committee; describe in detail hazardous procedures or chemicals involved, including precautions observed.
- For studies that are quality improvement (QI) related, authors must include a statement about IRB review in the Methods section. Authors must include one of the two statements: 1) This study received IRB approval, and include protocol number; or 2) This study was exempt from IRB review after institutional IRB review.
- Outline statistical methods used.
- When describing the results of hypothesis testing, report P-values and/or confidence intervals; avoid using phrases such as "not significant."
- Identify drugs and chemicals used by generic name (if trademarks are mentioned, manufacturer name and city are given).
- All gene and protein names must be written according to NCBI or HUGO nomenclature.
Each submission must include references listed using superscripted Arabic numerals by order of appearance in the text. Please be sure to cite personal communications and unpublished data directly in text without being numbered. Gastroenterology encourages you to cite underlying or relevant datasets in your manuscript by citing them in your text and including a data reference in your Reference List. Data references should include the following elements: author name(s), dataset title, data repository, version (where available), year, and global persistent identifier. Add [dataset] immediately before the reference so we can properly identify it as a data reference. The [dataset] identifier will not appear in your published article. All abbreviations should follow the Index Medicus abbreviations. Please ensure your references follow Gastroenterology style requirements:
- Article: (list 3 authors, followed by et al.): 13. Meltzer SJ, Ahnen DJ, Battifour H, et al. Protooncogene abnormalities in colon cancers and adenomatous polyps. Gastroenterology 1987; 92:1174-1180.
- Book: 18. Day RA. How to write and publish a scientific paper. Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information, 1979.
- Article in Book: 22. Costa M, Furness JB, Llewellyn-Smith IF. Histochemistry of the enteric nervous system. In: Johnson LR, ed. Physiology of the gastrointestinal tract. Volume 1. 2nd ed. New York: Raven, 1987:1-40.
- [dataset] 5. Oguro M, Imahiro S, Saito S, et al. Mortality data for Japanese oak wilt disease and surrounding forest compositions, Mendeley Data, v1; 2015.http://dx.doi.org/10.17632/xwj98nb39r.1
For all revised manuscripts, the corresponding and first author must check each citation listed in the Reference Section. For Revised manuscripts, please list names of authors who share first authorship in bold text. In addition, please include the phrase "Author names in bold designate shared co-first authorship" at the end of the references section. This allows giving due credit to joint first authors (see the "Comment from the Editor" in the October 2012 issue of Gastroenterology for more on this topic).
Tables may either be uploaded separately or included at the end of the manuscript document. Most table editor programs can be placed within the manuscript file successfully. Tables should be prepared without the use of tabs.
Please use the following guidelines when preparing figures for Gastroenterology. For more information, please see our Figure Submission FAQs.
- Images: All figures should be of high quality (300 PPI or greater when set to the size you would want the figure to print legibly). The physical size of a figure cannot exceed 7 inches wide by 9 inches tall. All figures should be prepared in portrait orientation. Figures may not span more than one journal page.
- Multiple Panel Figures: Please submit all panels together in a single attachment.
- Acceptable Formats: Please submit figures as separate attachments in JPEG, TIFF, EPS, or PDF formats (300 PPI resolution).
- Figures should not be created in programs such as Word or PowerPoint. Images become compressed when embedded in these programs and will not be as clear and high-resolution as the originals. Software such as Adobe Illustrator should be used for figure creation. For questions regarding the conversion of other file formats to JPEG or TIFF, please view our Figure Submission FAQs.
- Font: Text presented in figures should be 8-10 point sans-serif (preferably Arial or Helvetica), but may not go below 6 point or above 13 point, except for panel labels. Panel labels must be 16 point Arial bold letters (A, B, C). Please avoid placing panel labels over images.
- Photographs: Remove all names and all other patient identifiers from photos and radiographic studies.
- Line Art and Graphs: AGA staff reserves the right to reformat and/or redraw graphs, charts, and other line art to ensure stylistic consistency across AGA Institute journals. Please ensure that any graphs or line art is submitted in at least 300 PPI resolution. 3D style art is not accepted.
- Figure Legends: Please do not embed or flatten the text into the image files. Figure legends should be included at the end of the manuscript body. AGA staff reserves the right to reformat to ensure stylistic consistency across AGA Institute journals.
- Gel electrophoresis labels: Protein molecular weight or DNA marker sizes must be indicated on all figure panels showing gel electrophoresis.
- File Naming: Figures should be named consecutively such as "figure 1.tif," "figure 2.jpg," etc., with the file extension appended (.tif, .jpg, .eps, etc). Each figure should be saved as a separate electronic file.
- Color Files: Figures should be submitted in the CMYK color space. Authors are encouraged to present color figures in a manner that will allow the data to be interpreted by colorblind readers. Gastroenterology suggests that authors present dual-labeled images in green and magenta rather than in green and red. See the website of the Jfly data depository for Drosophila researchers (http://jfly.iam.u-tokyo.ac.jp/color/) for more information on how to make figures and presentations intelligible for a colorblind audience.
Supplemental Material
We encourage you to submit non-essential figures or portions of your manuscript as supplementary material for online-only publication, as this is highly beneficial to our readership. Authors who offer supplementary information must ensure those materials are readily available upon request. However, please note that the following items MUST be within the main text and not provided as supplemental information:
- "Materials and Methods" section.
- References cited within the main text.
The portions of your manuscript that you would like to be included as supplementary material (including figures and tables) should be uploaded separately from the manuscript as "supporting documents."
Gastroenterology allows manuscript submissions to have been posted to a preprint server, with the following stipulations:
- Authors must retain copyright for the manuscript so that it may be transferred to AGA or to Elsevier if the manuscript is accepted, per the journal's copyright policy.
- The preprint cannot be updated while the manuscript is under review and cannot be updated if it is accepted for publication in the journal, even if the preprint server directs the author to do otherwise.
- If a manuscript is already submitted to an AGA journal and is under review, that manuscript may be submitted to a preprint server at any time before the article is accepted so that it may be considered as a published work in grant applications. As above, that preprint cannot be edited or updated while under review and cannot be updated if it is accepted for publication in the journal.
- Publication of a preprint must be noted on the title page of the submission, with the preprint DOI included.
- Because of the potential impact on patient care, preprints of a clinical nature are discouraged but will be considered; your decision to post a clinically oriented paper to a preprint server may impact ultimate acceptance.
- We only allow submissions of preprint papers from platforms that allow you to update your record with a link to the published article (for example, bioRxiv).
A graphical abstract is a single, concise visual summary of the main findings of the article. For ease of understanding, the graphical abstract should read clearly from top to bottom or left to right.
Please download and use our PowerPoint template to assist in the creation of your graphical abstract. The template file is the proper size and contains the required font style and size, plus other stylistic elements to ensure a clean and uniform look to your abstract. If you elect not to use our template, please adhere to the following guidelines:
- Image size: minimum of 2 inches high by 5 inches wide at 300 ppi. Larger images are allowed, but please use the same ratio (2 high × 5 wide). Please note that your image will be scaled proportionally to fit in a 2 × 5 rectangle.
- Font: Arial font only will be accepted.
- File type: preferred file types are TIFF, EPS, PDF or PowerPoint.
- No additional text, outline or synopsis can be included. Any text or label must be part of the image file. Please do not use unnecessary white space or a heading "Graphical Abstract" within the image file.
All graphical abstracts must:
- Be a clear, visual representation of the main findings of the article
- Use text sparingly
- Avoid distracting or cluttering components
- Use color as appropriate
The use of color is encouraged; however graphical abstracts are subject to the same color figure charges as the rest of your article. If you do not wish to have your graphical abstract printed in color, please provide two versions-one in color for online publication only and one in black and white/grayscale for publication in print.
Graphics Support
The editorial office is not able to provide graphics support at this time. Authors are responsible for obtaining permission to use any images that they include from outside sources, including articles, web pages, stock photo sites or Google image searches. Any needed permissions must be submitted along with your graphical abstract or identified in the Acknowledgements section of your manuscript.
Submit your manuscript via Editorial Manager (http://www.editorialmanager.com/gastro). The editorial office receives over 2,000 manuscripts a year. Each new manuscript receives a unique number and information on the manuscript is recorded on our internal network. Editorial staff may only release information on manuscripts to the corresponding author(s). The editorial office will e-mail a letter to the corresponding author acknowledging receipt of a new or revised manuscript.
Each manuscript is assigned to an associate editor who has expertise on the subject. If the manuscript is judged to be appropriate and competitive for publication by the associate editor, it is sent to experts in the appropriate area for peer review. The associate editor chooses two to four reviewers, who remain anonymous. Authors are encouraged to suggest an associate editor and four to six reviewers in the cover letter, though final assignments are at the discretion of the handling editor.
Reviewers provide comments for the editor and for the authors. The journal expects reviewers to treat manuscripts as confidential communications and not to use the content for their own purposes or make copies of the manuscripts. Reviewers are also expected to declare to the editor any possible conflicts of interest.
The single most important criterion for acceptance is the originality of the work. However, a decision to accept a manuscript is not based solely on the scientific validity of its content. Other factors affecting decisions include the extent and importance of new information in the paper compared with that in other papers being considered, perceived impact, the journal's need to represent a wide range of topics, and the overall suitability for Gastroenterology. Decision letters usually, but not always, convey all factors considered for a particular decision. Occasionally, the comments to the authors may appear to be inconsistent with the editorial decision, which takes into consideration reviewers' comments to the editor, as well as the additional factors listed above.
Decisions on peer-reviewed papers are e-mailed to the authors an average of three weeks from the date of submission. We make every effort to contact authors within 3-7 days for manuscripts that are rejected internally without review. All manuscripts are evaluated promptly by at least two members of the board of editors prior to making such decisions. Because our overall acceptance rate is 10-12%, typically 60-65% of submissions are rejected internally. Editors are not able to answer any pre-submission inquiries from authors.
Gastroenterology offers a "fast-track review" option for clinical and basic research manuscripts that were previously submitted to and turned down by similar high-profile journals that publish cutting-edge, impactful research. Authors who qualify for this option must also submit the complete, unaltered decision letter and all reviewer comments they received from the previous journal. We advise authors considering this option to use their best judgment in determining what constitutes a high-profile journal, and to also consider the nature of the reviews they have on hand; if they are unlikely to be able to address them then it is also unlikely that we will be able to accept this work. As with all original manuscript submissions, the editors and editorial office cannot answer pre-submission inquiries as to whether or not a paper is likely to be approved for fast-track status; it must be submitted through Editorial Manager to make this determination.When submitting a clinical or basic research manuscript for fast-track review consideration, please select the clinical or basic article type that best matches your manuscript, and indicate the fast-track request in your cover letter. If the manuscript is approved for fast-track status, Gastroenterology's board of editors will make a decision within 5-14 days that will include one of the following outcomes:
- The authors will receive a decision letter asking for a revised manuscript based on both the reviews from the previous journal and any additional comments raised by the board of editors or consulting editors of Gastroenterology (including our statistical editors).
- The editors may decide that the manuscript requires additional peer review and send it to additional invited reviewers (who will not see the reviews from the other journal), without guarantee of ultimate acceptance (the authors will be promptly made aware of this).
- The authors will be informed that their manuscript did not meet the selection criteria for Gastroenterology that is needed for further evaluation. For these papers, we will inquire with our sister journals, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology or Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology (depending on the focus of the manuscript), whether they would consider reviewing the manuscript for potential publication, after which the authors will decide how to proceed. We aim to make this process as swift as possible so our authors receive a prompt but thoroughly vetted decision.
Manuscripts that do not match the criteria for fast-track consideration will be subject to routine submission processing by the editorial office, as outlined elsewhere in these Instructions. Only original research manuscripts would be eligible for fast-track status; not article types such as reviews, letters to the editor, clinical challenges, etc.
Accepted manuscripts with all necessary materials for publication accounted for are sent to Elsevier and are indexed on PubMed soon after acceptance. Within three to five business days, they will be uploaded to Gastroenterology online (http://www.gastrojournal.org/) under "Articles in Press" for preprint viewing by subscribers. Once authors have had the opportunity to review proofs of their manuscripts, these author-corrected proofs will replace the uncorrected proofs, followed by the final articles on PubMed.
Manuscripts are copyedited to make them consistent with journal style; if a particular section in the manuscript is not clear or requires additional information, the copyeditor will direct questions to the author. These questions, or "author queries," will appear in the margins of the proofs that are sent to the author. All abstracts and titles will be reviewed and possibly modified by the journal's science editor. Authors can review changes at the Accept with Revision stage of their manuscripts. All line art will be reviewed and possibly modified by the journal's graphics staff. Authors can review changes at the proof stage of their manuscripts.
Authors are required to return proofs to the publisher within 48 hours. If changes are not returned within 48 hours, the manuscript will move forward in the production process.
Forms for ordering article reprints will be sent with proofs to authors and should be returned with the corrected proofs. Authors do not receive free reprints, and therefore are responsible for ordering their own reprints (minimum order: 100) from the publisher.
The journal editors consider research/publication misconduct to be a serious breach of ethics and will take action as necessary to address such misconduct, which includes submission or publication of information that:
- is intentionally erroneous,
- has been published elsewhere by a different author without acknowledgment (plagiarism),
- has been published elsewhere by the same author without acknowledgment (duplicate publication),
- is subsequently published elsewhere by the same author without acknowledgment, attribution, or permission from the AGA Institute, as holder of the copyright, to reprint or adapt the material.
The publication of abstracts or posters is not considered duplicate publication but should be disclosed in the cover letter accompanying the manuscript submission.
Breaches of Gastroenterology's ethical standards may result in proscribed submission for all authors of the concerned manuscript and, when appropriate, notification of the authors' institutions. All authors are fully responsible for the content of the manuscript.
For any manuscripts which include data from animal experiments, Gastroenterology requires authors to adhere to standards articulated in the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE)(https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/arrive-guidelines), guidelines. Additionally, in the Methods section of the manuscript text, authors must include:
- A statement of adherence to the above referenced standards;
- A statement of institutional approval;
- All relevant animal experimental information:
- Sex and age of mice (or other in vivo models) for all the experiments;
- The genetic background(s) of the mice or other experimental in vivo models;
- For transgenic or genetic mouse models, whether the controls were sibling littermates or were purchased separately (if purchased separately, were the animals co-housed to minimize potential effects of different microbiota);
- Specifics of diet composition;
- Whether mice were fasted (and for how long) or not before a challenge or an assessment was carried out;
- Type of bedding, caging system, and enrichment used for housing the mice;
- If interventions were performed, were they done during light or dark cycle.
Any deviation from these standards or practices must be described in detail. Please refer to our commentary for comprehensive information.
Each author must have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for the content of the paper and must approve of the final version of the manuscript. Authorship should be based on substantive contributions to each of the following:
- conception and design of the study;
- generation, collection, assembly, analysis and/or interpretation of data;
- drafting or revision of the manuscript;
- approval of the final version of the manuscript.
The following are examples of conflicts of interest (COI) that may occur with editors, authors (including invited authors), and reviewers. Interactions considered pertinent are from the start of the research activity in a specific program until such time that a submission is anticipated to be published or one year from submission date, whichever is longer.
- Editors: editors who make final decisions about manuscripts must have no personal, professional, or financial involvement in any of the issues they might judge. Examples of personal involvement with an author include former students, fellows, mentors, or relatives. Examples of professional involvement include academic rivalry, being from the same institution or research group as the author, evaluating a manuscript submitted by a member of the board of editors, or collaborating (e.g., co-authoring research article or grant) with an author. Examples of financial involvement include employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants/patents received, and royalties with an entity (or competing entity) discussed in the manuscript.
- It is a COI for editors of the AGA Institute journals to hold a position of editorial responsibility for a competing publication. The ethics committee reviews disclosure statements submitted by editors and notifies either/both the secretary/treasurer and editor of any potential COI. The procedures contained in Section C of the "AGA/AGA Institute Policy on Disclosure of Potential Conflict of Interest" apply if a COI is found to exist.
- Authors: COI for an author may arise if there exists a financial arrangement (e.g., employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants/patents received, and royalties) with a company whose product figures prominently in the submitted manuscript or with a company that makes a competing product.
- Reviewers: COI for reviewers exist when they have had an ongoing collaboration, original publications, or grants with the authors within the previous two years, except when part of a multicenter group from a different site; are from the same institution as the authors; or have any financial arrangements (e.g., employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants/patents received, and royalties) with a company whose product figures prominently in the submitted manuscript or with a company that makes a competing product.
Potential COI are to be disclosed at the beginning of the peer-review process.
- Editors: an associate editor having COI with a submitted manuscript must recuse himself from handling the manuscript and request that the manuscript be reassigned. The editor-in-chief having COI with a submitted manuscript must assign its review to an associate or guest editor for handling. A manuscript submitted by one of the members of the board of editors must be assigned to a guest editor.
- Authors: the senior or corresponding author assumes full responsibility for supplying the following information on the title page at manuscript submission:
- For each author, disclosure of any financial arrangement with any company whose product figures prominently in the submitted manuscript or that makes a competing product; or a statement for each author that there is no conflict to disclose.
- A disclosure of all funding sources supporting the work and all institutional or corporate affiliations.
- A list of individuals who provided writing assistance for the manuscript and the source of funds that supported this assistance.
- In addition, at manuscript submission, each author must attest to several author statements in the manuscript management system, thereby assigning copyright of the manuscript to the AGA Institute and affirming authorship responsibility, manuscript originality, payment of author fees, IRB/animal care committee approval, role of study sponsor, financial disclosures, and funding sources.
- Based on the information provided, the editors will determine whether COI exists and decide to either: a) reject the manuscript; or b) publish the manuscript with the COI disclosed.
- Reviewers: when invited, reviewers must decline to review a manuscript if a potential COI exists. After review, reviewers must answer the following questions, which appear in the journals' manuscript tracking system:
- Have you, the undersigned reviewer, had an ongoing collaboration, original publication or grant with the authors within the previous two years, except in the case of being a part of a multi-center group from a different site?
- Are you, the undersigned reviewer, from the same institution as the authors?
- Do you, the undersigned reviewer, have any financial arrangements (e.g., employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants/patents received, and royalties with an entity) with a company whose product figures prominently in the submitted manuscript or with a company making a competing product? Any reviewer answering "yes" to this question is prompted to describe the nature of their financial agreements.
- If the reviewer discloses a potential COI after the review, the handling associate editor decides if the review should still be used to judge the manuscript.
Should an editor, author, or reviewer fail to disclose a potential COI and this is discovered after publication, the following sanctions may be applied according to the severity of the infraction:
- Editors:
- A letter of reprimand and warning as to future conduct from the editor-in-chief, in the case of an associate editor, or from the chair of the publications committee, in the case of the editor-in-chief.
- Dismissal from the position.
- Authors:
- A letter from the editor of explanation and education where there appears to be a genuine misunderstanding of principles.
- A letter from the editor of reprimand and warning as to future conduct.
- A letter from the editor to the author's institution or funding body.
- Publication of a notice detailing the author's failure to disclose the COI.
- Publication of an editorial detailing the full details of the misconduct.
- Refusal to accept future submissions from the author on a sliding scale of one-to-five years.
- Formal retraction or withdrawal of the paper from the scientific literature.
- Reporting the case to the Office of Research Integrity (ORI).
- Reviewers:
- A letter from the editor of explanation and education where there appears to be a genuine misunderstanding of principles.
- A letter from the editor of reprimand and warning as to future conduct.
- A letter from the editor to the reviewer's institution.
- Refusal to allow the individual to review for the journal on a sliding scale of one-to-five years.
PLAGIARISM, DUPLICATE SUBMISSION/PUBLICATION POLICYDefinitions
- Plagiarism is the unreferenced use of published and unpublished ideas. It may occur at any stage of planning, research, writing, or publication and applies to print and electronic versions.
- Duplicate submission/publication, which occurs when two or more papers, without full cross-reference, share the same hypothesis, data, discussion points, or conclusions.
Should plagiarism or duplicate submission/publication be identified, the journal editors will apply the sanctions listed below according to the severity of the infraction. They will apply sanctions to individual authors depending on their type of involvement with the article, as provided at the time of submission on the title page.
- A letter of explanation from the journal editors to the authors where there appears to be a genuine misunderstanding of principles.
- A letter of reprimand from the journal editors as to future conduct.
- A formal letter from the journal editors to the author's institution, employer, or funding body.
- Publication of a notice or editorial in journal.
- Refusal to accept submissions from the author for a range of one-to-five years.
- Formal withdrawal or retraction of paper from the scientific literature.
- Journal editors report the case to Office of Research Integrity, which promotes integrity in biomedical and behavioral research supported by the U.S. Public Health Service; monitors institutional investigations of research misconduct; and facilitates the responsible conduct of research through educational, preventive, and regulatory activities.
Image manipulation is the misrepresentation of data by selectively altering portions of an image. The expectations for how images should be ethically handled are:
- No specific feature within an image may be enhanced, obscured, moved, removed, or introduced.
- The grouping of images from different parts of the same gel, or from different gels, fields or exposures must be made explicit by the arrangement of the figure (e.g., using dividing lines) and in the text of the figure legend.
- Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or color balance are acceptable if they are applied to every pixel in the image and as long as they do not obscure, eliminate, or misrepresent any information present in the original, including backgrounds. Non-linear adjustments (e.g., changes to gamma settings) must be disclosed in the figure legend.
Journal graphics staff will screen images at random during the submission process and will review images that editors, reviewers, or readers suspect have been manipulated. If manipulation is suspected, the staff and editors will initiate an investigation with the authors and possibly their institutions.
SanctionsShould image manipulation be verified before or after publication of an article, one of the below sanctions will be applied, based on the severity of the infraction. The editor-in-chief and board of editors will determine, on a case-by-case basis, the severity of the infraction and corresponding sanction. Sanctions will be applied to individual authors depending on their type of involvement with the article, as provided at the time of submission on the title page.
- A letter of explanation from the journal editors to the authors where there appears to be a genuine misunderstanding of principles.
- A letter of reprimand from the journal editors as to future conduct.
- A formal letter from the journal editors to the author's institution or employer.
- Rejection or withdrawal of manuscript acceptance.
- Publication of a correction or editorial.
- Retraction of the published article.
- Refusal to accept submissions from the author for a range of one-to-five years. For particularly egregious cases or series of cases, a life-time ban may be considered
The AGA reserves the right, on a case-by-case basis, to report particularly egregious cases to relevant funding bodies. This policy was developed in accordance with the guidelines set forth by COPE.
Compliance With Funders' Open Access Policies
Gastroenterology's publishing partner, Elsevier, has established agreements and developed policies to allow authors who publish in Elsevier journals to comply with manuscript archiving requirements of various funding bodies (e.g., the National Institutes of Health) as specified as conditions of researcher grant awards. For a full list of funding bodies with which Elsevier has agreements, go to https://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/open-access-policies/funding-body-agreements. These agreements and policies enable authors to comply with their funding body's archiving policy without having to violate their publishing agreements with Gastroenterology. The agreements and policies are intended to support the needs of the journal's authors, editors, and society publishing partners, and to protect the quality and integrity of the peer-review process.
Gastroenterology offers authors the option to sponsor immediate open access to their articles online at http://www.gastrojournal.org and http://www.sciencedirect.com. Authors can elect to sponsor their article only after receiving notification that their article has been accepted for publication in Gastroenterology. The charge for article sponsorship is $3,000, which is used to offset publishing costs of typesetting, tagging, and indexing of articles, hosting articles on dedicated servers, supporting sales and marketing costs to ensure global dissemination via http://www.gastrojournal.org and http://www.sciencedirect.com, and permanently preserving the published journal article. The fee excludes taxes and other potential author fees such as submission, page, and color figure charges, which are additional. Authors who have had their article accepted and who wish to sponsor their article to make it immediately freely available will be given the opportunity to complete the "RIGHTS AND ACCESS" portion of the author forms which will be provided electronically along with the author acknowledgment letter you receive after your final accepted manuscript has been sent to the publisher for processing.
Open Issue Highlights and Archives
The AGA supports free access to Gastroenterology on the broadest possible basis while adhering to a publishing model that is economically sustainable over a long horizon. To that end, for each issue of the journal, several original research articles are identified by the editor-in-chief as critical content for readers and thus are made immediately open access. Additionally, all content older than 12 months is free to all online. Also, many special sections of each new issue are immediately free to all online.
Authors of articles published in Gastroenterology may voluntarily post their accepted manuscripts to personal websites or institutional repositories immediately upon acceptance.
CONTINUING MEDICAL EDUCATION (CME)/MAINTENANCE OF CERTIFICATION (MOC)Continuing Medical Education (Reader CME)
Each issue of Gastroenterology will contain two to three continuing medical education exams associated with articles that appear in the issue. AGA members can take the exams online free of charge. Non-AGA members are required to pay a $15 processing fee. For CME exams that accompany original articles, readers can claim 1.0 AMA PRA Category 1 credits™ and 1 MOC credit. For CME exams that accompany AGA Institute medical position statements and technical reviews, readers can claim 2.0 AMA PRA Category 1 credits™ and 2 MOC credits.
Successful completion of this CME activity enables the participant to earn up to 1 MOC points in the American Board of Internal Medicine's ABIM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program. Participants will earn MOC points equivalent to the amount of CME credits claimed for the activity. It is the AGA's responsibility to submit participant completion information to ACCME for the purpose of granting ABIM MOC credit.
Reviewers of articles for Gastroenterology are eligible to receive 3.0 AMA PRA Category 1 credits™ per manuscript. The review must receive a passing grade to receive the credits. Contact Alexander Vaeth at email@example.com for more information.
Submission Fee
Authors submitting original basic or clinical manuscripts to Gastroenterology are required to pay a non-refundable $75 fee at submission via Editorial Manager. The submission process cannot be completed until the submission fee is paid. This fee applies to the following original research manuscript types:
- Clinical - Alimentary Tract
- Clinical - Liver, Pancreas & Biliary
- Basic - Original Alimentary Tract
- Basic - Liver, Pancreas, & Biliary
Page Fees
Gastroenterology charges authors of original research articles a fee for each printed page published. This applies to accepted articles that are submitted on or after January 1, 2011. Authors will receive invoices for page charges shortly after the corrected proof of their accepted manuscript has been finalized. Page charges for non-AGA members are $100 per page. AGA members who are first or corresponding author at the time of submission will receive a 15% discount on page charges and pay $85 per page. Page charges apply only to unsolicited original research submitted as one of the following manuscript types:
- Clinical - Alimentary Tract
- Clinical - Liver, Pancreas & Biliary
- Basic - Original Alimentary Tract
- Basic - Liver, Pancreas, & Biliary
Color Figure Fee
Authors are required to pay for the printing of color figures ($650 for the first color figure and $100 each for additional figures). If the manuscript is reviewed with color figures, it must be published with color figures, and printing fees must be paid for by the author. If the author does not wish to pay for printing color figures, then the figures must be uploaded in grayscale or black-and-white only to allow review of the data as they will ultimately be published in print. Authors may include color images to be published online-only by uploading the color files separately as supplemental files.
In accordance with the guidelines set for by ICMJE, authors of manuscripts involving clinical trials must provide full registration of their trial(s). A clinical trial is defined as any research project that prospectively assigns human subjects to intervention and comparison groups to study the cause-and-effect relationship between a medical intervention and a health outcome. The trial must have at least one prospectively assigned concurrent control or comparison group in order to trigger the requirement for registration. Appropriate online registries include https://clinicaltrials.gov/, http://www.isrctn.com/, http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm, http://www.anzctr.org.au/, http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/index.asp, or any primary registers that participate in the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trial Platform.
- Please include the clinical trial registry web site and trial number at the end of the "Conclusions" section of the abstract in the manuscript Word document (this information will not count toward the 260 word limit). Example: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT002209456.
- Please include a statement in the "Methods" section of the manuscript that affirms all authors had access to the study data and reviewed and approved the final manuscript.
- Please upload the clinical trial study protocol as a separate attachment.
Randomized controlled trials should be presented according to the CONSORT guidelines. Manuscripts that do not adhere to these guidelines will not be reviewed for publication.
When submitting your manuscript via Editorial Manager, you must adhere to the following guidelines:
- Please complete and upload as a separate attachment the CONSORT flow diagram that illustrates the progress of patients through the trial including recruitment, enrollment, randomization, withdrawal and completion, and a detailed description of the randomization procedure. The CONSORT template flow diagram can be found at http://www.consort-statement.org.
- Please complete and upload as a separate attachment the CONSORT checklist, which you can find at http://www.consort-statement.org.
REPORTING META-ANALYSES OF GENETIC STUDIESGastroenterology requires all meta-analyses of genetic studies to follow the Human Genome Epidemiology Network (HuGENet) guidelines. To review the guidelines, go to http://www.cdc.gov/Genomics/hugenet/default.htm.
Authors are expected to make available materials such as cell lines, cDNA clones, hybridomas, antibodies, biological reagents, unique animals, etc. to any qualified investigator. Prior to the submission of newly cloned genes or nucleic acid sequences, the journal requires authors to provide an accession number to a publicly accessible, recognized data repository (e.g., GenBank) on the title page of the manuscript.
Other large datasets produced using genomics technologies (including but not limited to ChIP on Chip, Genotyping, aCGH, and Tilling Arrays) must be deposited in an appropriate public repository. The repository URL and the data accession number must be included, both in the body of the manuscript and Editorial Manager, upon submission. If there is no public repository for the submitted data, it is the author's responsibility to provide permanent publicly accessible links to the raw data and access for the reviewers.
These guidelines are a means of encouraging the free exchange of scientific information and to promote progress in all areas of gastroenterological investigation.


text:
|Review by Daris
|posted 09-17-2012 01:58 PM
|4782 views
|0 times favorited
|3 comments
- Kreg Shelf Pin Jig
- Brand: Kreg | Category: Drill-Driver Accessories
The Kreg Shelf Pin Jig is an excellent jig to add your woodworking collection. I've done the "make your own" pegboard type of jig. The problem is you cut it down to size and it seems like you never get it right the first time. When you do finally get it right it still feels a little off when you're finished. Anyone who has the done pegboard thing will know how it can be a pain to do(and no I'm talking about those crazy smart never make a mistake woodworker guys, I mean regular folk). Before I go much further though I have to say that I'm a big Kreg nerd. Kreg hands down makes the best products for woodworkers and the difference is you can tell these guys actually eat their own dog food. That is to say, I really believe these guys are real woodworkers and actually use their own products. I hope this review is helpful and if you want to see more pics and videos about this check out my entry over at: www.woodlogger.com
Here is a snapshot of the box that the jig came in. I picked mine up from Amazon. Click here if you want to check out more about it.
- Shelf-Pin Jig
- Locating Pin
- Jig Extender
- 1/4" Drill Bit
- Depth Collar
- Allen Wrench
- Instruction Manual
The back of the jig has a really handy set of holders built into the jig. It will hold your drill bit, depth collar, and the location pin.
The jig can be used with or without the fence. The fence is really handy, it attaches to the edge of the jig and allows you to get a square fit. It can also be attached to either side of the jig. On one side if you attach it you'll get approximately a 1" depth in-set. If you attach to the other side, it will give you approximately a 2-1/8" depth in-set. Of course you don't have to use the fence at all if you need to go deeper. Just attach a square board to the work piece and align your jig to that.
If you have(or need) multiple jigs you can attach them together to get a longer length. I can't see ever purchasing an additional one, but I could see where some folks might want this. If you need more holes you simply insert the locating pin in the last hole and then place the jig on top of it.
The depth collar is used to set the depth of the hole while drilling a hole. If you set the depth collar and the drill bit in the back of the jig it will line up for a perfect depth.
The jig is really easy to use. In the first image I lined up the board on the edge using the 1" side and fence. I'm using a Kreg clamp to hold it in place but any good clamp will work great. I drilled my end hole.
Next up I put in my locating pin and then placed the jig on top of the pin.
Lastly I drilled my remaining holes with the locating pin still in the first slot.
Overall the Kreg Shelf Pin Jig is a really easy to use product. It feels rugged enough for the casual woodworker. One of the best features is the size. I've seen other jigs that are two or three times this size. Another big plus is the metal reinforced holes in the jig. Some of the other jigs I've seen only include a punch hole and you then go back and drill them in after. With this jig you get it all done at once. If you have a project where you'll need to drill shelf holes I think you'll find it does the job well. I hope this review was helpful and if you want to see more pics and videos about this check out my entry over at: www.woodlogger.com
-- Daris, Indianapolis, https://www.woodlogger.com
3 comments so far
#1 posted 09-17-2012 04:31 PM
Great review. I have one of these and at first I thought it was too small. But then after using it for a while I realized most of my uses were for short runs of shelf pin holes. It's exactly the right size. I agree the makers are obviously guys who use the tool. It is solidly built and everything fits into slots on the back.
#2 posted 09-17-2012 11:21 PM
Thanks for the review. I have several Kreg products and like them all. Simple and full of function.
-- Steve - "Never Give Up"
#3 posted 02-13-2016 06:41 PM
"...eat their own dog food"??
Never heard that one before.
-- "I am endeavoring, ma'am, to construct a mnemonic memory circuit using stone knives and bear skins."
Have your say...
You must be signed in to post the comments.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
. As Hurricane Sandy begins to weaken and pass, cleanup efforts and relief are needed. Here is how you can help through the American Red Cross. NOTE – Only use reputable charities and organizations in order to avoid scams. FINANCIAL HELP Financial donations help the Red Cross provide shelter, food, emotional support and other assistance to those affected by disasters ...Read More »
Political Speak Got You Confused? Don't Worry, Here's Your Translation Guide
The Associated Press has compiled a dictionary, of sorts, to help you understand all the words, phrases, and other jargon that is used during the election season. With such extreme focus on so many races this election cycle – from the White House down to state-level races – readers can use this, not only as a dictionary, but as a ...Read More »
My Response To Obama's #ForAll Photos
. The Obama campaign has had 'prominent' Democrats tweet photos of themselves with words written on the back of their hands, such as "Obama Care", "Medical Research", and "For Our Kids". My problem is that the important issues are not being addressed by the Obama Administration, as well as the Obama campaign. So here is my response: . What else ...Read More »
Democrats Cut HOW Much From Medicare?
During an election, there are few issues that spark controversy and heated debate the way that Medicare does. Just look at how the Democrats have treated the Paul Ryan budget plan for it's changes to Medicare. But are the Democrats justified in doing so after they passed The Affordable Care Act – or more commonly referred to as Obamacare? Thanks ...Read More »
CDN's Michelle Ray Recognized For Influence And Outreach
. Kred, a company who specializes in social media analytics, has published their list of the Top 50 Political Bloggers, which is comprised of two separate lists: Top Influencers and Top Outreachers. CDN's own Michelle Ray tops the list for the Top Outreacher in America. This is a wonderful feat for Michelle, as she beat out Jake Tapper of ABC ...Read More »
3 Strikes: Why Paul Ryan Is A Bad Choice For Veep
"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them" ~Albert Einstein~ . The buzz is deafening. Social Media, the Mainstream Media, and seemingly everyone in-between is buzzing with excitement at Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan being named as Mitt Romney's possible selection for the Vice Presidential nominee on the GOP ballot this November. Sure, Paul ...Read More »
How To Help Millenials: An Interview With Former Labor Department Official
The July 2012 jobs report was released on August 3rd 2012, and major news outlets have been reporting that the US economy added 163,000 jobs. While the debate rages on about the accuracy of the real number of jobs created or lost, the economic impact on young Americans has been lost in the fervor. The jobs report revealed some startling and ...Read More »
Putin Wins, Unrest On Russian Horizon?
. Vladimir Putin will once again serve in the Kremlin as President of Russia, raking in an estimated 62% of the vote one day ago. The closest competitor in the race was communist Gennady Zyuganov, bringing home around 17% of the votes. Mr. Putin will enter his 3rd term (6 year term) . He is returning after a 4 year gap where ...Read More »
US Energy Policy: Why It Failed & How To Fix It
THE FACTS ABOUT UNITED STATES ENERGY One of the biggest drains on the American economy is, undoubtedly the importation of energy. In the early 1970's the United States was the world's largest producer of Oil and Natural Gas. If we still remain near the top of the world's list of producers – #3 according to the CIA Fact Book – how is ...Read More »
Defending the American Dream Summit – Halftime Report
Well folks, we are at the halfway point for Americans for Prosperity's Defending the American Dream Conference in our nation's capitol. Breakouts and exhibits started early as over 2500 participants descended on the Washington Convention Center. There were several small sessions on subjects ranging from blogging to health care to how to testify before a committee! Heavy hitters such as ...Read More »
CDN at the Defending the Dream Conference – Pregame Edition
Hello from Washington D.C. Members of the Conservative Daily News team are making their way up to the nation's capitol as we speak for the 5th annual "Defending the American Dream" Summit. This year's addition promises to be a fantastic assembly of individuals who are ready to take the country back from its march toward socialism. DAD coordinators, presenters and ...Read More »
Atheists 'Going Public' Has Some Christians Hot Under the Collar
BANNOCKBURN, Ill., July 19, 2011 — From eye-catching billboards that proclaim, "I can be good without God," to a critically acclaimed movie at the Sundance Film Festival, atheists are going public with their beliefs like never before. This has some Christians hot under the collar, but the leader of one of America's leading evangelistic ministries is urging believers to keep ...Read More »


text:
1 (800) 359-3834
To contact us with a question or comments, please email firstname.lastname@example.com
To sign up for our newsletter, please fill out the form below.
* = Required Field
Share this form:
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Email Address


text:
Program and Program Standards
Program Standards
Program Standards - Quality Award
Did you know - Scouts Canada's Program Standards is also the Quality Award submission form?
- The PSQA is a simple checklist - if you are already running a quality program, this will "fill itself"
- The PSQA can be used during your planning meetings to ensure that you are delivering a quality program.
- Quality programs are directly related to growth and retention
The goal for this Scouting year in Voyageur Council is that 60% of the junior sections will earn the Quality Award (Colony / Pack / Troop). For the Program Standards Checklists, click here.
Check with your Group and/or Area Commissioner for information on how to submit your checklists to recieve the Program Quality Award.
For Group Commissioners, find out more below.
Program Standards for Venturers and Rovers
The Venturer and Rover program belongs to the youth. For this reason, we encourage the youth of these sections to develop a set of Program Standards that work for their group.
- Develp a set of Program Standards that works for the goals of your section. This work should be done by the executive and/or members.
- Start with the Program Standards for your section as a template, making changes as necessary.
- Consult Scouts Canada's Mission, Principles and Practices for guidance, and your advisors.
- Discuss the Program Standards with your Group Commissioner.
- Once you have agreed on a reasonable set of standards, have the youth and the GC sign off on them.
- These Program Standards can be used to earn the Quality Award.
- Send in a copy to the DCC - Program Standards.
- If you need help at any point, contact a member of your Area or Council support staff.
The Blue and Gold Award for Venturers
The Blue and Gold Award is presented for achievement in the areas of leadership and organization. A company may apply annually for the Blue and Gold Award. The certificate signifies that at the end of each full year of operation, the company has:
- a set of meaningful by-laws, understood by the members;
- had a full slate of officers for the year as outlined in the company by-laws;
- held an election of officers for the coming term;
- conducted a training or orientation session for its officers elect;
- had its members regularly plan and participate in the company program;
- completed a year's program that has included some activity in each of the six challenge areas;
- met with the chair and/or members of the group or section committee to advise them of company progress; and
- an advisor actively participating in the full operation of the company
For the Application form for the Blue and Gold Award, visit the Administration Page.
National Standards - Revitalization!
Program Standards for Scouts Canada are moving forward - there is a Program Revitalization project that you can find out about here. Team Members have published a Program Review that talks about why we do what we do. Learn about the acronym SPICES: Social, Physical, Intellectual, Character, Emotional, Spiritual.
Program Quality Awards for Group Commisisoners
Quality programs are directly related to growth and retention; as a Group Commissioner, you are responsible for both. That is why we are asking GCs to do the paper work for the Program Standards Quality Award submissions. Here are some helpful tips:
- The PSQA is a simple checklist - if you are already running a quality program, this will "fill itself".
- Forms can be found at scouts.ca or on the Administration Page
- Set up a checklist for each of your sections, and fill it in as the year progresses, with help from the section leaders.
- Use the checklist during group committee meetings and section visits
- If they are not already doing so, show your sections how to use the checklist in their planning process
- Share the checklist with your AC. This will help with section support
- Even if a section does not complete all the items, send in the form anyway
- Send submissions in to DCC Program Standards or your Area Commissioner
- Ensure that the awards reach your sections before year end.
Remember, The goal for the this Scouting year is that 60% of the sections will earn the Quality Award.
The deadline for award submissions for the previous Scouting year is Jan 31. However, you should already be working on award submissions for the current Scouting year.
Program Quality - it's not just a good idea - it's your job!


text:
Storey teller: the design tale behind Yves Béhar's Bay Area bolthole
From the street, it might take visitors to Yves Béhar and Sabrina Buell's San Francisco home a moment to find the front door. A seemingly unbroken stretch of black anodised aluminium – which looks flat from afar, but up close exposes a unique CNC-machined pattern of nicks and notches – spans the ground-level facade, disguising both a garage and the aforementioned entrance. Each fits flush within the mottled expanse; a pair of portals, hiding in plain sight.
This interplay between raw materials and careful craftsmanship, the clearly visible and the cleverly, strategically obscured, is one that is repeated throughout their three-level home in San Francisco – itself a domestic dream-turned-reality that has been, in many ways, decades in the making.
Béhar – a de facto design superstar who established himself with tech-forward projects like One Laptop Per Child, Jambox and Sodastream – and Buell, one half of the art advisory firm Zlot Buell, which caters to the Bay Area elite, bought the property in 2008 for themselves and their three children (they've since also introduced a newborn into the fold). For nearly three years, they lived in the 'nondescript cottage with a 1990s-era Italianate renovation', as Béhar diplomatically describes it, before gutting the space and embarking on a complete overhaul. 'It was a renovation that felt like a ground-up construction, which was really, really difficult,' he remembers with a laugh. 'I would not do it that way again.' Yet even this direct acknowledgement isn't a regret. Béhar believes in experimentation as an integral part of the creative process, one that is informed by potential missteps in addition to perceived successes.
Béhar in his office, where he designed the 'zig-zag' shelving to shield book spines from the sun. The 1970 Luigi Colani 'Pool' sofa, upholstered in Kvadrat's 'Divina' fabric, provided a retro, conversation-pit vibe
Not one square inch of the interior was left without Béhar's figurative fingerprints. He designed the house's masterplan and layout himself, with floor-to-ceiling windows throughout and a sense of social and visual flow in mind. The open-plan living room, kitchen and dining room is where most time is spent – bustling during breakfast, when everyone's getting ready for the day, and mellow in the evening, when Béhar and Buell play board games with the kids before bedtime. It leads to a backyard terraced with angular concrete levels and landscaped with greenery native to northern California.
The second level of the house is broken up by a communal office, suitable for early morning conference calls, distraction-free brainstorm sessions, or grade-school homework, while two adjacent kids' rooms lead onto a joint outdoor play space. Unimpressed with the prospect of putting down standard all-weather Astroturf, Béhar and Buell imagined the artificial grass as a blank canvas and commissioned a piece from street artist Barry McGee to adorn it. His brightly coloured repeating triangles provide the perfect spot for makeshift hopscotch sessions, while the original print hangs across the hall. Buell's keen eye for curation is evident everywhere, and most of the walls in the house are a gallery unto themselves, but the kids have freedom to live as, well, kids. They've been taught not to touch the art, but nearly everything else is interactive, as evidenced by the crayon scrawls on their closet doors, and the regular trampoline time on the Béhar-designed sofa set downstairs. ('It actually has a really nice bounce,' he says.)
And then, above everything, is the cantilevered, minimal-to-the-max master bedroom and en suite, with a comprehensive view over the play space and yard to the back, and out to Alcatraz on the other side. Behind a bare white wall is a split bath featuring a Japanese soaking tub. Anyone washing who wishes to talk to someone on the other side can simply push open a peekaboo panel and say hello, face to face.
Leveraging relationships with local craftspeople, industry insiders and manufacturers that he cultivated over the course of his career, Béhar willed his comprehensive vision to fully functioning life in the form of custom one-offs: hardwood stools and branch-like chandeliers, felt-covered cabinets and heated patio benches, leather drawer pulls and photo realistic rugs. 'Typically, when I work on a project there's some kind of compromise,' he says. 'The one place I don't have to do that is my home. Here, I'm allowed to do my own thing.'
In the main living area a 1973 Ubald Klug 'Terrazza' sofa set surrounds a rock sculpture by Nicole Wermers, on a rug custom-designed by Béhar and produced by Moooi. The steel-reinforced suspended ash shelving is by Béhar, as is the steel staircase, designed to maintain a sense of openness; the Jakob mesh and rubber treads keep it child-friendly. Above the fireplace hangs an artwork by Wyatt Kahn
A large part of Béhar's 'thing' is technology. He is fascinated by the minor and major ways in which it can make our collective day-to-days easier, more efficient and, by extension, more enjoyable. Electronic touches are ubiquitous but unobtrusive. The front door unlocks automatically when Béhar or Buell approaches, thanks to the (Béhar-designed) August smartlock system. With a quick tap of an iPhone, a flat-screen TV emerges from a downstairs console that doubles as storage for spare tableware. A trap door separates the master bedroom from the bustle of the rest of the house, and can be operated with the touch of a toe on a button situated at ankle-level. 'A big part of the magic is the reveal,' he says. While Luddites would still be comfortable – he didn't eschew things like traditional light switches – there are always a few communal iPads out, should anyone invited over want to assume control.
And yet the tech is not all purely functional. There are cheeky flashes too, like the line of all-but-hidden LEDs that runs along the ceiling in the master bedroom and changes colour with a few swipes on a smartphone. 'It's like my secret disco ball,' Béhar says of the installation, which recalls Leo Villareal's Bay Lights by way of Saturday Night Fever.
It's showing these details to others that allows Béhar a chance to do what seems to excite him the most about his home: sharing his stories. He has an anecdote about everything. There's the love heart-shaped rock found on a walk in Marin, where he likes to surf, that shares shelf space with a vase painted by Picasso that was given to his parents at their wedding reception. Point to anything in the place and there will be a tale attached. 'When I was about 13, I wanted to be a writer,' he says. 'I wanted to tell stories. Then I realised the medium doesn't matter, and I actually see design as a powerful form of communication.'
For Béhar, his home is less a culmination so much as a continuation of all that's come before, and an indicator of what's still to come. There, cutting a sleek silhouette on a tree-lined hill, stands a home that is – like the city that surrounds it, and the family that lives within – forever evolving.
As originally featured in the October 2016 issue of Wallpaper* (W*211)
- Information
Photography: Anthony Cotsifas. Producer: Michael Reynolds


text:
An Unexpected Congruence Modulo 5 for 4--Colored Generalized Frobenius Partitions
Combinatorics/Partitions Seminar
Meeting Details
For more information about this meeting, contact Matthew Katz, James Sellers, George Andrews.
Speaker: James Sellers, PSU
Abstract: In his 1984 AMS Memoir, George Andrews defined the family of $k$--colored generalized Frobenius partition functions. These are denoted by $c\phi_k(n)$ where $k\geq 1$ is the number of colors in question. In that Memoir, Andrews proved (among many other things) that, for all $n\geq 0,$ $c\phi_2(5n+3) \equiv 0\pmod{5}.$ Soon after, many authors proved congruence properties for various $k$--colored generalized Frobenius partition functions, typically with a small number of colors. In 2011, Baruah and Sarmah proved a number of congruence properties for $c\phi_4$, all with moduli which are powers of 4. In this brief note, we add to the collection of congruences for $c\phi_4$ by proving this function satisfies an unexpected result modulo 5. The proof is elementary, relying on Baruah and Sarmah's results as well as work of Srinivasa Ramanujan.
Room Reservation Information
Room Number: 106 McAllister
Date: 01/15/2013
Time: 11:15am - 12:05pm


text:
I really miss the hospital I used to go to in the Chicago suburbs, especially after this last one I stayed at. As you may have expected, I checked myself in as the mixed mood didn't get better and I got closer and closer to hurting myself as the thoughts bore down on me. I took notes at this hospital because I couldn't believe how bad my experience was.
In no particular order, and as only a partial list, here are the things that went wrong:
- Food. The food was cold, poorly cooked, and mostly out of a can.
- Lack of privacy in the bathrooms. Besides the bathrooms having no doors, the staff doing rounds found a way to always know when I was in there, need to mark down where I was for the every-quarter-hour rounds, and always look in and make eye contact while I was on the toilet or in the shower.
- Uncaring night staff. The night nurses (7pm-7am) failed to learn any names, even when with you for several nights; and failed to ever do anything that could be "extra work" like look up if you can have melatonin even though I know the dr prescribed it because the day nurse looked it up for me.
- Not sharing info. I saw a different nurse practitioner every day and no one had read notes about how I was doing from the previous day. Same with nurses between shifts and on different days, case managers, and therapists. I would be asked the same question multiple times a day, by different people, and no one checked the notes anywhere to see what I had said or what the dr had said (who only saw me for a grand total of 5 minutes between 2 visits and never took a history even of medicines I tried).
- Cleanliness questionable. Day room was mopped and trash emptied each shift, but all hand rails were sticky, the bathrooms were only swiffered daily and toilet/sink cleaned every other day, and I never saw the main halls actually cleaned, just swiffered. No wonder everyone upstairs shared a cold, and then it was brought downstairs and everyone went home with one.
- Crickets. In my bathroom, in my room, outside my room, and others had them too.
- Yelling. All day and most of the night from a dementia patient – did I mention I was on the geriatric floor? And others with intellectual disabilities yelled and spoke loud at all times of the day and night.
- Assault on the staff. By a person with dementia. Nothing done about it! She yelled violently at patients regularly too.
- Meds from home not approved. After the main nurse practitioner insisted I get meds from home for meds that were not on the hospital's formulary (like Advair!) – that would have to be approved by pharmacy and then prescribed inhouse, a process that should take a couple hours, right? – I NEVER got them until I discharged, and then they didn't give back one of them because they didn't want me to take it anymore!!!! It was mine, prescribed by my regular doctor!
- ECT brought up. Multiple times, by multiple people. If you read my blog you'll know why that scared and pissed me off!
- Sleep meds never ready. Even though they were prescribed, and I took what was in the formulary, the nurses never pulled my sleep meds to give me at night, and I would have to wait 20 minutes from the time I asked to the time I got them even when all they were doing was pulling my meds for me.
- Transfer to another hospital didn't go through. I asked first thing the first morning to go back to the hospital that sent me cuz they had no beds the night before but did after discharges the next day. After getting the runaround about who to talk to, I kept on him all day and he finally came through – though no one else on the staff knew I was leaving. Sigh. Then the other hospital said I'd have to self-pay and that was too much money!
- Diapers. People just left in them for hours. Patients would tell staff about puddles or smells.
- Interns, and bad basic therapy. Every day I was there a therapy intern or a weekend-only staff person led the processing and education group. We would get 2 minutes to say what was on our mind, longer if we had a complaint and then they might jot something down. Super, super basic coping skills like deep breathing or the 10 cognitive distortions (just read off a sheet, not explained) were "taught," and as someone who knows and practices them, they were not helpfully taught, explained, or they don't work anyway.
- Intake, middle of the night. Imagine this. Been in a small room with just a couple chairs and a tv for 9 hours. During that time you had an hour-long intake covering everything possible. After several hours, you are told there are no beds and they will transfer you. Then more hours go by. And there is one bed available at a hospital without a good reputation, but legally (to cover their responsibility) they can't just let you go under family's care, or let you just sleep in the little room because you have reported intense feelings for suicide. More hours go by. An ambulance finally shows up to transport you to new hospital, sans sirens and lights. New hospital takes their sweet-ass time processing you – 4 more hours until 5:30am – and asks the Same Exact Questions even though your paperwork with all the answers was faxed over hours before you got there. Plus the people were rude!
Despite this and more, I remained model patient, taking meds, participating in groups (just 2 total to fill the day, sigh…), keeping patient, talking to and helping other patients. Just needed a restful place to feel safe and wait for the suicidal thoughts to wane.