{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021152667075413856, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001226241569589209, 'mean_word_length': 5.2034220532319395, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Guidelines for Composing and Assessing a Paper on Treatment of Pain

Authors, readers, and editors share a common focus. Authors want to publish their work. Readers want to see high-quality, new information. Referees and editors serve to ensure that authors provide valid conclusions based on the quality of information that readers want.Common to each of these roles are instructions to authors. However, these are typically written in an uninspiring, legalistic style, as if they are a set of rules that authors must obey if they expect to get published. This renders the instructions boring and oppressive, if not forbidding. Yet they need not be so, if they are set in context.Instructions to authors can be cast in a way as to reflect common purpose. They can remind authors what perceptive readers want to see in a paper and, thereby, prompt authors to include all necessary information. If cast in this way, instructions to authors are not a set of rules by which to satisfy publishers; they become guidelines for the etiquette of communication between authors and their readers.Against this background, the present article has been composed to serve several purposes. Foremost, it amplifies instructions to authors beyond the conventional technicalities such as headings, layout, font size, and line spacing. It prescribes the type of information that should be communicated and explains the reasons for those recommendations. Doing so not only informs authors about what to write, but also informs readers and referees about what to look for in a good paper. Secondarily, the article publicizes examples of errors and deficiencies of manuscripts submitted to the Journal in the past that have delayed their acceptance and publication, which could have been avoided had the forthcoming recommendations been followed. The recommendations also reprise the elements taught in courses conducted by the Spine Intervention Society in their extended program on evidence-based medicine. Doing so underscores that instructions for authors are not a procedural technicality but a way to ensure that what authors write, what readers read, and what the Journal publishes comply with contemporary precepts of good evidence.Some 20 years ago, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a comprehensive series of articles with a common title: "Users' Guides to the Medical Literature" [1,2]. These articles focused on the science of statistical tests and critical appraisal, and their importance for properly understanding the literature. The present article differs in that it does not presume to teach technicalities. Instead, it describes and explains, step by step, the critical components of an article, what authors should include, and what readers should look for, so that the Journal can ensure that consistent, high-quality information is shared between its authors and readers.The present article focuses on articles concerning treatment of pain, largely because this type of article is more commonly submitted than articles on reliability or validity of diagnostic procedures. Although the present article principally focuses on papers for the Spine Section of the Journal, the same principles, appropriately adapted, serve for other sections.