On This Page:

General Guidelines

Manuscript Preparation

Review Article Manuscript Guidelines

Professional Development Perspective Manuscript Guidelines

Methodological Brief Manuscript Guidelines

Letter to the Editor Manuscript Guidelines

Quality Guidelines

Submit a Manuscript

1. General Guidelines

• Read the journal's policy statement on the use of artificial intelligence and update your manuscript if needed.
• All submissions to PRiMER should be composed in Microsoft Word in a manner consistent with the uniform instructions for authors as published in the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: www.icmje.org.
• Authors should only be listed on the title page. 
• Authors listed on the title page of PRiMER manuscripts are accountable for the content of the manuscript, and are expected to have fulfilled the roles of authors as described by the ICMJE. Contributors to a study who have not fulfilled the roles/duties expected of authors may be listed in the manuscript’s Acknowledgments section.
• All reports of original research must have approval by an appropriate institutional review board (IRB), and this approval must be explicitly confirmed in the paper (preferably in the Methods section). 
• Submissions that involve reporting data related to race and ethnicity are expected to follow JAMA's "Updated Guidance on the Reporting of Race and Ethnicity in Medical and Science Journals," particularly as it pertains to reporting demographic information, the use of collective terms, and capitalization and adjectival usage.¹
• Manuscripts should be clear, succinct, and well documented. Manuscripts must be well written and correctly use syntax, grammar, spelling, and symbols to assure accurate transmission of information. Text should avoid sexual and racial bias and use gender-inclusive language whenever possible. In general, passive construction should be avoided. 
• Abbreviations and acronyms should be kept to a minimum and spelled out on first reference. 
• All drug names should be generic. 
• HEADINGS should use all capital letters, centered and underlined, for major section headings.
• Subheadings should be left-justified and underlined.
• Justify only the left-hand margin. Do not hyphenate words at the margin. Use one space, not two, following the period at the end of each sentence. The manuscript should not include a running header or footer. 
• Page numbers: All pages should be numbered, including the title pages, abstract, main text, references, tables and figures.
• Tables and figures must be uploaded in a file separate from the main text and must have both labels and titles.
• References must be formatted according to American Medical Association (AMA) Manual of Style guidelines.
• All revised manuscripts should be submitted with “track changes” turned on to allow reviewers to evaluate the revisions.
• For revised manuscripts only: prepare reviewer response form, like the one here (Microsoft Word download), addressing the reviewers' comments individually. Upload the completed response form as "supplemental material" with your revised manuscript in ScholarOne.

Reference

1. Flanagin A, Frey T, Christiansen SL, AMA Manual of Style Committee. Updated Guidance on the Reporting of Race and Ethnicity in Medical and Science Journals. JAMA.2021;326(7):621–627. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.13304

2. Manuscript Preparation

The entire manuscript must be double-spaced in an 8 1/2" x 11" portrait layout format with one-inch (1") margins and a 12-point font. Note: Tables and Figures may be single-spaced. All manuscripts should be formatted with the following sections:

Title Page

• Title of 75 characters or less
• Name, professional degree, and institutional affiliation of each author
• Name, address, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address of the corresponding author
• Date of submission
• Word count for the main text (ie, excluding abstract, references, tables, figures, and legends)
• Financial support for the project being reported, if applicable
• Presentations: the name, date, and location of any professional meetings at which the content of the manuscript has been presented or will be presented before publication
• Conflict Disclosure: disclosure of all conflicts of interest for any and all authors
• Key Words: two to six key words, using standard Index Medicus (MeSH) terminology
• Statement that the authors have read all elements of the author instructions, and are submitting a manuscript that is within scope for PRiMER, is being submitted in the correct manuscript category, and adheres to both formatting and quality guidelines set forth in the instructions.

Abstract (Research Briefs, Learner Research)

All research and review articles require an abstract of no more than 250 words. The abstract should have four sections: Introduction, Methods, Results, Conclusion. Methodological Briefs and Professional Development Perspectives should have an unstructured narrative abstract (without sections). Editorials and letters to the editor should not include an abstract.

Main Text (Research Briefs, Learner Research): Maximum Length 1,000 Words

• Introduction: The introduction section of manuscripts reporting research or educational interventions should generally include a brief review of relevant literature to establish the need for the research project and/or the educational intervention being reported. The Introduction section should always address the following questions:
  
  1. What issue is being addressed?
  2. Why is the issue important?
  3. How will the discipline of family medicine and/or medical education benefit from having addressed the issue?
  4. What have others done to address the issue?
  5. What were your objectives for the research or educational intervention?
  
  
• Methods: For both qualitative and quantitative research, the methods should be described in sufficient detail to allow readers to fully understand how the research was performed. This should include a complete description of sampling methods, instruments used, methods of data collection and data analysis, and steps taken to avoid or adjust for bias and confounding.
  
  1. All manuscripts reporting research that involves human subjects (both educational research and clinical research) should include a statement indicating that the research has been reviewed and approved, or granted an exemption from formal review, by an appropriate human subjects protection committee (ie, the institutional review board; please see the quality guidelines for more details about appropriate IRB statements.)
  
  2. Manuscripts reporting educational methods, curricula, or interventions should include a description of the educational method, curricula, or intervention, in sufficient detail to permit readers to understand how the activity might be reproduced at their own institutions.
  
  3. Research on educational methods, curricula, or other interventions must include an evaluation of the effect of the intervention. A description of the techniques used for evaluation should be described in the methods section of the manuscript.
  
  4. For manuscripts reporting noninterventional work, it is important that authors carefully describe methods, curricula, and other aspects of their work to provide a full sense of the scope and nature of the project.
  
  
• Results: Results should be presented in coherent fashion and should be specifically tied to the objectives and methods presented earlier in the manuscript.
  
  
• Discussion or Conclusions: This section should:
  1. State the principal findings of the research or educational intervention.
  2. Explain why those findings are important.
  3. Comment on methodological weaknesses of the study.
  4. Provide an overall conclusion.
  5. Discuss potential next steps for further research or educational intervention.
  Authors should not draw conclusions or make inferences that are not specifically supported by the data reported in the study.

Tables and Figures

Authors should follow the AMA Manual of Style guidelines for the  when preparing tables and figures. Provide no more than a total of 5 tables or figures. Figures should be provided in their original form (ie, jpg, tif, etc). Tables must be supplied in an editable format (do not submit a graphic/image representation of a table). Tables and figures must be supplied in a separate file and not embedded within the manuscript body. All submitted tables and figures must be labelled (eg “Figure 1/Table 1”), have titles, and be cited within the text.

References (All Manuscripts)

Use of a reference management software package is strongly recommended (such as Mendeley.com, RefWorks.com, Endnote, etc). References must be formatted according to AMA style (numbered citations). All references in the reference list must be cited in sequential order within the text.

Acknowledgments (All Manuscripts) 

Acknowledgments should be brief and appear following the reference list. All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed under acknowledgments. Authors should obtain permission from persons being acknowledged before including their names in the work. Acknowledgment of the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning software is required in certain instances, as defined by PRiMER's policy on the use of artificial intelligence.

Appendices

Some material is more appropriate to be placed in an appendix than in the body of a manuscript.  Appendix files should be uploaded to the submission system using the “supplementary material” designation. The following items should be included as Appendices:

• Full curricular descriptions
• Survey or questionnaire tools
• Standardized patient case descriptions
• Assessment tools
• Any data table that spans more than three pages and cannot be summarized.
• Similar items that the authors or editors deem appropriate as an appendix
• Note: editor-in-chief makes final decisions about appendices

In addition to uploading appendix materials to the submission system, authors who are members of STFM are encouraged to share these materials with colleagues by uploading them to the STFM resource library as a “General Resource”. Instructions for this can be found on the STFM Resource Library web site (STFM member login is required).

We do consider short, rigorous “rapid review” manuscripts, under both the Original Research and Learner Research categories. Please see next section for instructions regarding review aricles.

Review Article Manuscript Guidelines

PRiMER will consider review articles as Research Briefs or Learner research, under some conditions. Because PRiMER’s short article format does not allow for extensive systematic or scoping reviews, we will consider brief, systematic, targeted, and limited rapid reviews under those two categories (Research Briefs and Learner Research).

Review articles should be tightly-focused, systematic reviews that answer a specific research question. Rapid Reviews of clinical topics (other than quality improvement), such as direct medical interventions, treatments, or disease classification, will not be considered. Rapid Reviews must include:

• A structured abstract (with subsections of ‘Background,’ ‘Methods,’ ‘Results,’ and ‘Conclusions’ of no more than 250 words
• An Introduction section that provides background to the specific research question
• A Methods section that includes data sources, literature search methodology, and inclusion/exclusion criteria for inclusion
• A Results section that includes a narrative description of identified papers, a PRISMA diagram, and a brief synopsis of the direction of the literature
• A Discussion section that includes how the authors conclude the literature review has answered the question, and all limitations

Additional information may be included as appropriate and as space allows, but Rapid Reviews are held to the same 1,000-word limit on initial submission as other article categories at PRiMER. A Rapid Review of a limited research question should not have an extensive list of references, by default – but should be inclusive of all relevant literature, as per the research question, search strategy, and inclusion/exclusion criteria. Authors should not consider a numerical limit of references, but rather the natural limitation of references that results from a refined and limited research question guiding the review.

Previously-published reviews that can serve as examples include:

• Bearden JM, Reese KF, Boyd AA, et al. Child access prevention laws and pediatric firearm injury: a rapid review. PRiMER. 2024;8:37. https://doi.org/10.22454/PRiMER.2024.120398
• Indelicato AM, Mohamed ZH, Dewan MJ, Morley CP. Rapid antigen test sensitivity for asymptomatic COVID-19 screening. PRiMER. 2022;6:18. https://doi.org/10.22454/PRiMER.2022.276354

Professional Development Perspective Manuscript Guidelines

Perspectives must foster the professional development of medical education researchers and scholars in primary care and health workforce education. Submissions focused on skills development, philosophy, attitudes, or practice may be considered. Perspectives must be grounded by evidence and supported by citations of peer-reviewed literatures (as opposed to blogs or short videos). We encourage submissions that focus on any career stage and that support the diverse needs and representation of authors, researchers, and scholars. We also strongly encourage potential authors to contact a member of the editorial team to discuss submissions of this type prior to submission.

Initial submissions must adhere to a 1,000-word limit for the main body of the text, excluding cover page material, abstract, references, illustrations and tables, etc.

Although flexibility is allowed, PDP submissions must adhere to the following format:

• A standard title page and author list as described above
• An abstract that summarizes the problem and key perspectives shared within the manuscript
• An introductory paragraph or section that defines the issue the manuscript seeks to address
• A narrative body that provides a detailed account of the skill, attitude, or practice being offered
• A conclusion paragraph or section that summarizes the main recommendations or points of the manuscript
• Tables, figures, or illustrations as appropriate
• Acknowledgements as appropriate
• References to supporting peer-reviewed literature

Submissions will be editorially or peer-reviewed, and authors can expect to receive a list of recommended revisions from the Editor-in-Chief.

Methodological Briefs Manuscript Guidelines

Methodological Briefs are brief review articles covering selected topics in Medical Education research. The primary audience for these articles is junior primary care faculty who are interested in completing an educational research project and who don’t have a background in research.

A Methodological Brief should be a short (~1,000 word) introduction or overview of a topic that will help researchers address or identify problems in research design and education. Additionally, Methodological Briefs may serve as introductions to underutilized methodologies, statements on common issues, or primers on research designs and paradigms. Methodological Briefs are NOT methods papers describing a single, particular study.

Example topics include:

• Writing a needs assessment/background/introduction section.
• Evaluation models and frameworks (Kirkpatrick, mixed methods, etc.
• Study designs appropriate to educational research:
  • Avoiding “uncontrolled before-after” designs
  • Study designs to use when you cannot use a control group
• Quantitative analysis and pitfalls
• Avoiding “floating P values”
• Describing your analysis plans
• Qualitative analysis and pitfalls
• Thoughtful choice of analysis method
• Declaration of researcher biases
• Other topics can be proposed for consideration by the series editor.

Methodological Brief manuscripts should be no more than 1,000 words, and should include an infographic, chart, or diagram illustrating the primary concept. The articles should be suitably referenced. Up to three authors can be included.

We encourage potential authors to contact the editorial team to discuss submissions in this category prior to submission. Examples of publications in this category are found here.

Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor must be brief (500 words or less), written in professionally appropriate parlance, and referenced appropriately (maximum five references). Letters to the Editor may not include tables or figures, unless requested by the editor. Letters to the Editor are expected to be responses to, and directly engage with, articles published in PRiMER. Letters to the Editor must not be treated as short-form, uninvited editorials.

Editorials and Special Articles

At the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief, editorials or special articles may be invited. Editorials will be narrative in form; special articles may take a variety of forms.

3. Quality Guidelines

Manuscript Quality—PRiMER seeks to publish papers that rigorously evaluate educational interventions and learning outcomes or test for behavioral changes resulting from an educational intervention. PRiMER will consider small studies, pilot projects, single-institution studies, work that seeks to replicate or confirm findings that are already known, or research that explores a broadly known construct in a new context. Papers published in PRiMER must contribute knowledge that incrementally adds to what is known about a topic or phenomenon. We will consider quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods submissions that are sufficiently rigorous.

We will not publish reactions to new curricula or interventions (eg, surveys of learners about satisfaction with a course) unless the learning modality or instructional content is new, there is generalizable knowledge to be gained by instructors at other institutions, and key portions of the instructional materials are made available (typically by references to a stable format for publication of online content, such as the STFM Resource Library). We will also consider qualitatively-driven papers that explore WHY or HOW students are reacting, particularly when experiencing a new or novel educational modality or method.

PRiMER seeks to continually improve the rigor and standards to which we hold publications in the journal. In 2024, we implemented a standard that we do not consider papers that are based solely on self-assessment by learners. This includes self-assessed knowledge, comfort, or perceived competence. These quality standards were already covered, to some extent, by our description of the use of the Kirkpatrick Model of Assessment (see below), but are further clarified in a 2024 editorial,² linked here:

https://journals.stfm.org/primer/2024/editorial-morley-jan24/

The Quality Guidelines below focus on educational research, as this is the core of PRiMER’s scope. Authors may wish to also refer to the CRISP statement by Phillips et al³ for broader quality considerations, particularly for Learner Research that reports on projects outside of medical education:

https://www.annfammed.org/content/early/2023/09/27/afm.3029

For a general overview of research methods, consider this free online methods guide: The Research Methods Knowledge Base (https://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/)

The following elements should be included in all submissions when applicable:

• Data sources must be fully identified
• Human subject recruitment procedures must be described, if applicable, including:
• Institutional Review Board (IRB) interactions (see statement below)
• Consent processes
• Participation incentives
• Recruitment procedures, description of outreach, etc.
• Description of the sample characteristics, and as appropriate, a comparison of the sample to the population the sample should represent, or from which it is drawn
• Limitations: Manuscripts are expected to have a comprehensive description of all limitations, to allow complete assessment of quality by reviewers, and fully informed interpretation by readers. The statement of limitations is typically included as part of the Discussion section.
• A statement about an interaction with an IRB should be present in most studies, except as noted below. As a general rule, studies that utilized publicly available data (eg, public CDC data sets, reviews of published literature, observation of public activity, opinion or theory pieces, etc) do not require any IRB interaction. All other studies require IRB interaction. All manuscripts that require an interaction with an IRB should stipulate which type of interaction occurred:
• IRB determination that a project is “not research” (eg, quality improvement or assurance) or “not human subjects research” (eg, biological samples of deceased individuals).
  Example: “This project was determined by #### IRB to constitute a quality improvement activity, and not human subjects research.”
• IRB determination that a project is research, but exempt from review¹
  Example: “As an anonymous survey, this project was determined to be exempt from review by ### IRB, citing exemption #2.”
• IRB review (expedited or full review). Example: “This project was reviewed and approved by ### IRB.”

Manuscripts are expected to consist of the following structural elements, in order:

1. An Introduction and literature review should lead to the study question(s). The literature review should include and refer to appropriate literature. There should be a description of the research question(s) and hypotheses to be tested or problems to be solved by the project.
2. A Methods section should be appropriate to answer the study questions. The methods should predict all reported results (eg, if the authors say they conducted a t test, the results of the t-test should appear in the results).
3. A Results section should be directly tied to all steps in the Methods section.
4. A Discussion section should explain the meaning of the results and help readers place the research findings in appropriate context. The Discussion section should not take “flights of fancy.” More information on writing an effective discussion section is available at: http://www.rcjournal.com/contents/10.04/10.04.1238.pdf. The Discussion section should also contain a clear and complete description of study limitations.
5. References should be listed in standard format, and follow AMA style (consistent with Family Medicine).
6. Appendices (optional): Some material is more appropriate to be placed in an appendix than in the body of a manuscript.  Appendix files should be uploaded to the submission system using the “supplementary material” designation. The following items should be included as Appendices:

• Full curricular descriptions
• Survey or questionnaire tools
• Standardized patient case descriptions
• Assessment tools
• Any data table that spans more than three pages and cannot be summarized.
• Similar items that the authors or editors deem appropriate as an appendix
• Note: editor-in-chief makes final decisions about appendices

Note that we will often turn away manuscripts that exhibit the following flaws:

• Reliance on self-assessed knowledge, or comfort with a new skill or body of knowledge, particularly when comfort or self-assessed knowledge are used in place of rigorous external skill or competency measurement.
• Reliance on a post-test only design, pre/post test design that relies upon immediate reactions or non-standardized tests following a curriculum
• Flawed statistical test selection. Most frequently, we see authors violate assumptions of independence when using parametric tests, in pre/post designs, when non-parametric tests or participant pre/post matching should be used.
• Superficial qualitative analysis that does not take advantage of rich qualitative data.

 Use of the Kirkpatrick Model of Assessment

Although manuscripts do not need to refer directly to the Kirkpatrick Model (KM) of Assessment,² it is helpful for reviewers, associate editors, and authors to have a basic understanding of the four levels at which outcomes might be assessed, according to KM.

Briefly, the four KM levels are:

1. Level 1: Reaction—The degree to which participants find the training favorable, engaging, and relevant to their jobs.
• This level might be thought of as the typical conference feedback form, eg, a “post-only” assessment of how the learner “liked” or experienced a training or educational event.
• For PRiMER, we will only rarely publish reactions, and then only if the learning modality or instructional content is new, there is generalizable knowledge to be gained by instructors at other institutions, and key portions of the instructional materials are made available (typically by references to a stable format for publication of online content, such as the STFM Resource Library). Level 1 (reaction) studies are more likely to be considered if done as a rigorous qualitative process.
2. Level 2: Learning—The degree to which participants acquire the intended knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence and commitment based on their participation in the training.
   • Performance on a standardized process (eg, United States Medical Licensing Examination [USMLE], Family Medicine Computer-Assisted Simulations for Educating Students [fmCASES], a regularly administered institutional examination, a periodic and regular survey, etc), and comparison with a nonexposed or differently exposed cohort (eg, comparison of students exposed to an intervention, vs unexposed, on board scores or an Objective Structured Clinical Examination [OSCE])
   • Posttest at an extended interval, on a test or instrument that measures a construct that was intended to be affected by the intervention (ie, assessment of long-term retention of knowledge).
• This is often measured by a “pre/post” design, where students complete a process (such as a test or survey), are exposed to an intervention, and then resubmit the same test or survey immediately after. This model is often affected by maturation, by quick reinforcement or “teaching to the test,” and other threats to validity.
• For PRiMER, learning MUST be assessed beyond simple pretest followed by nearly immediate posttest. Examples of acceptable forms of learning assessment include:

1. Level 3: Behavior—The degree to which participants apply what they learned during training when they are back on the job. For example, if residents and faculty were given comprehensive education and feedback about opioid prescribing in a family medicine office, a decreased number of opioid prescriptions would be a change in behavior.
2. Level 4: Results—The degree to which targeted outcomes occur as a result of the training and the support and accountability package. For example, if residents and faculty were given comprehensive education and feedback about opioid prescribing in a family medicine office, a decrease in patient emergency room visits for opioid overdose would be considered a result.

Although researchers should use a rigorous approach to educational assessment, some educational interventions will not achieve their goals, or will have unintended consequences. Performance, behavior, and results should be measured, but they may not improve. The journal welcomes submissions with unexpected or negative results.

For quantitative studies, consider:

• Is the number of units used in the sample study (N) very small? Manuscripts that try to do too much with a very small sample may be problematic. We do accept small studies, but they should be handled appropriately for their sample size. Examples of good practices are:
• The reliance on purely descriptive statistics if inferential (ie, P-value generating) procedures would be underpowered
• The use of statistical procedures that are intended for small samples (eg, Fisher exact test)
• Emphasizing qualitative analyses and results for studies that have them
• Is the statistical test appropriate?
• Have the authors utilized the best procedures (not just appropriate), and have they controlled, either experimentally or statistically, for confounding factors?
• Is a comparison group appropriate, and if so, was a comparison group (of any sort) used? A comparison with self (eg, a time series), or a simple descriptive study, may not require a separate comparison group.
• Are the instruments employed valid and reliable? How do the authors know?

For qualitative studies, consider:

• Methods across qualitative studies can vary extensively. This is appropriate. Ideally, a qualitative study will describe a broad type of study (eg, grounded theory, phenomenological, content analysis, etc)
• There are basic components that should be present in all qualitative studies:
• Data collection procedures or sources
• Sampling methods
• Analytic processes
• Transcription procedures
• Some statements about control or consideration of biases
• A general sense that the authors have not selectively identified only quotes that fit their research question
• Additionally, the issues that apply to quantitative studies (described above) may be applied to qualitative study assessment, with appropriate consideration for how those requirements fit the qualitative model described.

References

1. US Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Human Research Protections. 45 CFR 46. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/index.html#46.101. Accessed April 21, 2017.
2. Morley CP. Moving on from self-assessment. PRiMER. 2024;8:5. https://doi.org/10.22454/PRiMER.2024.624901
3. Phillips WR et al. Improving the reporting of primary care research: consensus reporting items for studies in primary care—the CRISP Statement. Ann Fam Med. Oct 2023, 3029; DOI: 10.1370/afm.3029
4. The Kirkpatrick Partners. The Kirkpatrick Model. http://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/Our-Philosophy/The-Kirkpatrick-Model. Accessed April 21, 2017.

Submit a Manuscript

Submit manuscripts using our Online Manuscript Submission System. If you already have a user account with Family Medicine, you can login using that same account.

Note: Submissions in the Learner Research category must include a statement in the cover letter identifying the first author's learner status (eg, student, resident, fellow, etc), and institution (eg, name of medical school, residency, and/or fellowship program). 

All revised manuscripts should a include an itemized reviewer response form, addressing the reviewers' comments. Upload the reviewer response form as "supplemental material" along with your revised manuscript, with "tracked changes" showing.